Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Welsh Development Agency Bill

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the Welsh Development Agency Bill.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): One from the Wales TUC emphasising the importance to Wales of the proposals for a development agency and regretting the delaying tactics adopted by some hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Welsh Council has also regretted possible manœuvres to delay the passage of the Bill? Will he give us some assurance—now that the Bill is being dealt with in another place—that we shall try to get it on to the statute book as soon as possible, because there is great resentment in Wales that it should be subject to a party manœuvre in this House due to the shortage of parliamentary time?

Mr. Morris: In my view there is a nearly unanimous welcome in Wales for this important Bill. Having regard to the urgency of the situation and the problems facing us in Wales, it is imperative that the Bill receives Royal Assent at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Will the Secretary of State State find time to debate the Bill on the Floor of the House after the Whitsun Recess? Does he intend to make the development agency subordinate to the proposed Assembly, and to surrender to the Assembly some of the

extensive powers that are given to him under the Bill?

Mr. Morris: The question of allocating time for the Bill to be debated on the Floor of the House is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I am sure that he will do what he can to satisfy Conservative Members. Perhaps the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) can assure me that we can get the Bill by the end of July, taking into account the time that he and his colleagues will require to debate issues properly in Committee. That is my aim. The functions of the Assembly will be announced much later.

Mr. Geraint Howell: Is it possible for the Minister to tell us how much money, if any, will be forthcoming from EEC funds during the next few years to help the establishment of the Welsh Development Agency?

Mr. Morris: I am sure that there are other Questions on the Order Paper on this subject. We in Wales shall not be backward in ensuring that we get the moneys due to us from EEC funds.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the absolute scorn in Wales at the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party in advocating more powers for the Welsh Grand Committee yet obstructing this important Bill going there? Is he aware that not only the trade unions but the CBI in Wales and the development corporations support this agency coming to fruition? Will he give an assurance that, if the Bill can be got through this Session, it will come into operation at an early date in the next few months?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is completely right to refer to the scorn which is manifest from one end of the Principality of Wales to the other concerning the activities of Conservative Members. It is obvious to all hon. Members that belatedly the Conservatives have recognised that they are in a tiny minority in Wales opposed to the Bill. I am still waiting for the assurance that I shall get my Bill by the end of July. I assure the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that it will be our wish to get—[Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) would pipe down. It is our wish to get the Bill into operation at the earliest possible time.

Mr. Fell: How is it possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be so ignorant of the procedures of the House as to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) for an assurance that the Conservative Party will allow the Bill to go through before a certain time? It is pure ignorance.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman can never teach any hon. Member the quality of ignorance or talk about pomposity. He knows nothing. — [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain himself. He is irrepressible.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we can get on and not have these personal exchanges.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman knows nothing of the delaying tactics of his hon. Friends over a Bill that is regarded in Wales as being of the utmost importance.

Gwernaffield (Traffic)

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he took to consult residents along the route affected before giving his consent to use of the "Dragon" route through the village of Gwernaffield by traffic during the summer months in order to relieve congestion in Mold.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): Clwyd County Council was consulted as the body responsible for local interests and as the local highway authority for the roads which form the "Dragon" route.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a very bad breakdown of the procedure of democratic consultations and that the inhabitants of these hitherto peaceful villages are to have their calm and safety rudely shattered, without having had any opportunity of expressing their views? Will he give an undertaking that he will conduct the earliest possible review of the working of this route and that if it is found to be objectionable on environmental grounds he will terminate the experiment as soon as possible?

Mr. Jones: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's worries about this matter. I assure him that this is an experiment for only a six-month period, that the

route is based on one drawn up and advised upon by the local police, and that a little amount of traffic on only one or two weekends is involved.

European Community Membership

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates his Department has made of the effects upon Wales of a British withdrawal from the EEC.

Mr. John Morris: I have already made clear my view that withdrawal would involve an unacceptable risk to the prosperity of Wales.

Mr. Grist: That is an extraordinary answer. I asked the Secretary of State what estimates his Department had made. However, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what indications he has received from employers, firms and farmers of the numbers they might expect to employ in the event of British withdrawal from the Common Market? Will he confirm that no production quotas or similar restrictions could be imposed by the European Coal and Steel Community, except under Article 58, which requires the unanimous approval of all member Governments?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is referring to what I regard as a wholly hypothetical situation. I am satisfied that it is in the interests of Wales that we remain in the Community. That is a wholly different question from joining the Community. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about Article 58. The decision can be taken only by the Council of Ministers, and the hon. Gentleman obviously knows of the unanimity rule.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that Welsh agriculture, and especially livestock farmers, will do better once we are full members of the EEC and that the common agricultural policy will be of benefit to Welsh producers?

Mr. Morris: We have been anxious to ensure that there are changes in the common agricultural policy. The need for those changes has now been recognised throughout Europe. In his discussions in Brussels my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has ensured that Welsh agriculture is fully protected, and I am sure that he will continue to do so.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in the run-up to the referendum it is important that we get away from the politics of fear in discussing whether we should remain in the Common Market or withdraw? Before we joined, people said that it would be disastrous if we did not join. Now it is said that it would be disastrous if we left. As regards employment, the balance of payments, inflation and a number of other matters, our membership in the early years has been disastrous for Wales.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend will not expect me wholly to agree with what he has said on this point. It is important that we establish the facts and that the discussion should be carried on on a rational basis, as it is now being carried on in Wales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity of correcting the wrong impression given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry over the weekend? Will he tell the people of Wales that if we have lost jobs in Wales recently it is because of the world recession and possibly the loss of business confidence induced by his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman should address such questions to my right hon. Friend. I am not aware of any jobs having been lost in Wales as a result of our membership of the Community. What we are all suffering from is a worldwide recession. Leaving or staying in the Community will not solve our problems. Whether we are in the Community or outside, we must solve our problems within this island ourselves.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) that we must avoid the politics of fear. We must concentrate on the politics of truth in our approach to the referendum. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that virtually every industry and firm in Wales believes that our industrial future and job prospects are more assured within the Market than outside? Will he also confirm that grants from the regional fund are additional to national regional policies? That is very important in Wales, which is virtually wholly a development area. Will he

further confirm that the General Secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, Sir Dai Davies, has said clearly that we can solve the steel problem better within the Community than outside it?

Mr. Morris: May I clarify the steel situation? There has been no Community proposal to cut back steel production. There is no question of the Community's imposing any cut-backs in British steel without the approval of the Council of Ministers. Therefore, one is dealing with a wholly hypothetical situation.
As for the views of firms in Wales, I have not had the opportunity to canvass them. All I can say is that opinion on these matters is divided. We shall have to wait until 5th June before we know where the body of opinion throughout Wales stands.

Sports Teams

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make representations to secure the right of Welsh national teams in all sports to compete separately in all major international events.

Mr. Barry Jones: The rules about international competition in any sport are matters for the international sports federations concerned. I see no reason for intervening.

Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware of the growing demand in Wales for full national status in sport? Is he aware that it would be highly desirable to remove the obstacles which now deny the right of Welsh teams to compete in major international events and to ensure for them the kind of freedom they would have if Wales had her own Parliament? Will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend make representations to those British bodies, which are also English bodies, in control of sport in these countries so that they cease their opposition to allowing Wales the right and freedom to compete?

Mr. Jones: I know that the hon. Gentleman is President of the Welsh Amateur Weightlifters' Association. I had the privilege of seeing the Chinese People's Republic lifting against Wales, and I saw Wales do very well in Cardiff.
This is an unlikely area for Government intervention. It is a matter for the sporting associations and the Sports Council. We do not have, and we do not want, the power to dictate.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Welsh international rugby team has carried the Welsh dragon even more successfully than the party led by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans)?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir, and I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would agree.

European Community Social Fund Grants

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the Welsh share of allocations to the United Kingdom in 1974 by the EEC Social Fund; and what was the number and volume of applications to the fund submitted or approved by the Welsh Office.

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement about the assistance received in Wales from the European Social Fund.

Mr. John Morris: Social fund allocations for Wales amounted to £2·7 million in 1973 and £3·4 million in 1974. These sums were equivalent to 11 per cent. and 13 per cent. respectively of the United Kingdom totals. Responsibility for the submission of schemes rests with the Department of Employment.

Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the statement by one of the fund's administrators that they had had no applications to deal with any specific Welsh problems since our entry, that any of the sums received in 1973 and 1974 resulted from schemes undertaken on our entry and that Wales had been desperately slow in making use of the fund? If that is true, is it not deplorable bearing in mind the number of recent redundancies?

Mr. Morris: There has been nothing deplorable in this area. I do not wish to comment on newspaper reports about what a recent visitor to Wales said, but the inference to be drawn from those reports is wholly misleading. I understand

that the Commission has issued a statement making it clear that it has no criticism of any kind to make of the Welsh Office, the Department of Employment or any other bodies referred to last week. I think that that tale had better be put to rest once and for all.

Mr. Anderson: Whatever allegations there have been—and I accept that the person concerned was immediately repudiated by the Commission on the matter—will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that if there is a positive "Yes" vote on 5th June he will fully publicise the fund and seek financial assistance from it for the benefit of Wales?

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I think he will appreciate the significance of the figures. Our allocation in 1974 was 13 per cent. Of the United Kingdom total although we have only 4·5 per cent. of the United Kingdom's employment. We have done very well. Whatever funds we receive come through Government agencies. They are matched pound for pound by the Government. I think we can be very proud of what has been achieved. We shall continue on the same basis.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that if we stay in the EEC after the referendum he and his colleagues will take every possible step to ensure that links between the proposed Welsh National Assembly and European bodies are maximised so that Wales will get the maximum possible benefit from this fund and others within the EEC?

Mr. Morris: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman stands on the EEC issue, but he was conspicuous by his absence when we divided on the issue two weeks ago. It is too early for me to say anything in advance about the functions of the Assembly. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall do our utmost to ensure that we continue to obtain for Wales as large a share as possible of any funds that are going.

Mr. Roderick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in deploring the fact that an administrator from the EEC should join in the referendum campaign?


Is it not tantamount to civil servants in this country joining in our domestic General Election campaigns?

Mr. Morris: The Commission's statement to which I have just referred is a sufficient indication of the views that are held of these reports, which were thoroughly inaccurate and misleading.

Land (Legislation)

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the Community Land Bill and the proposed Land Authority for Wales.

Mr. Barry Jones: My right hon. and learned Friend has received representations from a number of local authorities and other organisations including church representatives.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Minister have no sympathy for the churches and charitable institutions which have a valid objection to having their premises confiscated at existing use value? Does he have no sympathy with the housebuilders' federation, which says that the effect of the Bill will be to damage the house building programme? Does he have no sympathy with the National Farmers' Union and the Civic Trust?

Mr. Jones: My sympathies are expected to extend widely this afternoon. Welsh Ministers have every sympathy for churches in Wales, and the Government recognise that for the churches there may be some special problems. I repeat the undertaking which was given by my right hon. and learned Friend during the debate on Second Reading of the Community Land Bill that we shall see to what extent within the principles of the legislation some of the difficulties can be overcome. I know that the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) has recently put his name to more than 30 amendments relating to Welsh aspects of the Bill, and he will have an opportunity to pursue his points in Committee.

Mr. Anderson: Surely everyone must recognise that in the end exemption from development tax will come for religious authorities. To resolve their uncertainties, the sooner an announcement to that effect is made the better.

Mr. Jones: My right hon. and learned Friend gave an undertaking on Second Reading which I have repeated.

Heads of the Valleys (Beswick Report)

Mr. Roderick: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress that is being made on the implementation of the Beswick Report in relation to the Heads of the Valleys.

Mr. John Morris: Real progress is being made in implementing the measures outlined in Lord Beswick's report for tackling the problems of the Ebbw Vale area. I am directly involved in this task through the special working group of key representatives of the Departments and authorities concerned, and the British Steel Corporation.
There have already been tangible results in establishing advance factory programmes, derelict land clearance and the preparations of industrial sites, all of which have been the subject of announcements I have recently made.

Mr. Roderick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that although a difficult struggle has been going on in the Ebbw Vale area for the acceptance of the Beswick timetable, new proposals have been made by the British Steel Corporation which are totally unacceptable in that area? Will he join us in pressing his colleagues in the Government that if the talks break down today or lead to deadlock the Government will intervene, as Ebbw Vale will suffer sufficiently under the Beswick timetable without being asked to suffer more?

Mr. Morris: I am deeply aware of the problems in Ebbw Vale. I was there this weekend chairing a joint meeting of all the interested parties, and I or my officials are there regularly. Discussions are proceeding within the industry on the BSC proposals—which are only proposals—and a meeting is taking place today between the BSC and the unions.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a categorical assurance that there will be no redundancies until alternative employment is provided for the men involved?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that that is what I am seeking to do. I have outlined a programme to the community for the clearing of land, the preparation of sites, the provision of infrastructure by way of water and sewerage and the building of advance factories to provide the alternative employment which I passionately regard as being of such importance in this area.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also bear in mind that a sharp rundown at Shotton would have serious repercussions not only in Clwyd but throughout the whole of North Wales where unemployment is at an unacceptably high level? Will he and his right hon. Friends give careful consideration to the substantial and impressive document recently produced by Clwyd County Council and other bodies in the area which provides certain alternatives which should be carefully considered by my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry?

Mr. Morris: As my right hon. Friend is fully aware, any rundown in any part of the steel industry would create major problems. That is why I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance that documents or representations emanating from any part of the steel industry will be carefully considered by the Government.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Minister say what is the estimated number of workers in Wales in the steel industry who will be made redundant within the next 12 months?

Mr. Morris: It is not possible to give such an estimate. Discussions are taking place today about certain proposals from the British Steel Corporation. We are also conducting a strategic review into the long-term proposals of the British steel industry. The hon. Gentleman will know the serious problems of production and the fall in the market throughout the steel industry, in particular in the strip mill division.

Pwllheli

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will pay an official visit to Pwllheli at an early date.

Mr. John Morris: I have no present plans to do so.

Mr. Wigley: If the Secretary of State were to visit Pwllheli he would be made aware of an unemployment rate for men of almost 15 per cent. Is he aware that unemployment has worsened in the past few weeks because of the closure of an engineering factory employing 50 people, a closure which was totally unnecessary and which could have been prevented had the powers of the Welsh Development Agency been in existence? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman seek to co-operate with his right hon. Friends in the Department of Industry to see whether the Government can intervene to bring this factory back to life and bring vital employment back to an area which is so destitute of it?

Mr. Morris: I am aware of the problems which concern the hon. Gentleman's constituency among others. I do not wish to comment on a particular case, but the hon. Gentleman knows well what has happened recently. I understand that there are a number of interests involved. Should anyone involved in this matter make application to the Department of Industry for selective financial assistance, any such application would be looked at urgently and sympathetically. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recall that, having regard to the problems in his area, I announced in the Welsh Grand Committee a short time ago the proposed building of two factories of 5,000 sq. ft. at Pwllheli.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

Engineering (Investment)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on current and expected levels of investment in the engineering industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): Capital expenditure by the engineering, shipbuilding and metal goods group of industries was £798 million in 1974, representing an increase in volume of 12 per cent. on 1973. The investment intentions inquiry carried out in November-December 1974, results of which were published in Trade and Industry on 30th January, indicated a significant fall in 1975. A more up-to-date assessment will be available when the results of the


next investment intentions inquiry are published on 9th June.

Mr. Biffen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a number of investigations outside his Department indicate the likelihood of a continuing fall in levels of investment? In view of the importance of profitability in terms of investment, will he persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to use his undoubted influence in the Cabinet to overcome the obduracy of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and to secure the early scrapping of the Price Code, and to use his undoubted influence to secure the rejection of the suggestion by Mr. Jack Jones of a prices freeze?

Mr. Mackenzie: I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his question. I cannot confirm that many of the investigations which are now being carried out indicate such a fall. As regards the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I do not think that is solely a matter for me. It is very much a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. The suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman strike me as being likely to lead on to further inflation rather than to curb it at present.

British Leyland Motor Corporation Limited

Mr. Stanley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he will be announcing his detailed proposals for the implementation of the Ryder Report on British Leyland.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the Second Reading debate on the British Leyland Bill, which has been arranged for Wednesday 21st May.

Mr. Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Parliament is being asked in the debate on Wednesday to give its approval for finance for one of the largest single commercial investments that have ever been made in the public sector, without being provided with any information on the prospective return on that investment? Does the Secretary of State propose during—or preferably before—the debate to give Parliament this necessary

information? Without it, Parliament is being asked to arrive at a decision while totally in the dark as to the crucial basis of the return.

Mr. Benn: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Certainly when a Government get involved in industrial matters they confront the question of how much can be disclosed without damage to the firm concerned. That is a point arising from another point of view put by the hon. Gentleman in Committee on the Industry Bill. I would not claim that every bit of relevant information can be made available. However, we shall do our best. If there are pieces of information that the hon. Gentleman would like which have not been published I shall consider them again, but it is difficult, when the Government are brought into these areas, to find an absolutely satisfactory answer immediately to these difficult questions.

Mr. Edelman: Pending his further statement, does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of British Leyland is a vital national interest? Further, does he agree that if, however improbably, the Brussels Commission were to try to interfere with the implementation of the Ryder Report, Her Majesty's Government would have the power to veto such interference through the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Benn: I must not enter into matters of legal interpretation, but my understanding of the provisions of the treaty is that the Council of Ministers would have to be unanimous to override a decision made by the Commission. Therefore, the United Kingdom Government alone would not have the power to do what my hon. Friend thinks.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is concern—I carefully put it no higher than that—in sections of British manufacturing industry at what the Prime Minister had admitted to be the pre-emption of such an enormous amount of our available resources by a leading unit in one industry alone? Will he undertake, in the debate on Wednesday or before, to put this vast expenditure into the context of the overall needs of the whole of the manufacturing sector?

Mr. Benn: I think that what the hon. Gentleman says has a great deal of force.


Given the fact that we have been investing at roughly half the rate of our major industrial competitors across the whole area of manufacturing industry, it is clear that if we seek to correct that deficiency in one company, however large, we are greatly accelerating investment in it and questions will be raised about other areas. However, a lot of the money that will be spent by British Leyland will go into other British manufacturing firms. For example, I hope that Alfred Herbert, which makes machine tools, will benefit from the British Leyland development programme. Thus we hope that by correcting this deficiency over the years the whole expenditure will help to reinforce other sections of industry.

Mr. Tom King: Following on from that, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether a full assessment has been made, in making this investment in British Leyland in what may not be a profitable venture, of the impact on the profitable exports which could have been made by contractors who will now find their order books full of British Leyland work?

Mr. Benn: The concept that there is always alternative profitable employment if only we can chop out what is unprofitable is a little theoretical. People do not easily move from one type of venture to another. Therefore, we must look at these matters in the light of what is practicable. One thing that I am sure of is that this country cannot survive unless we are able to make our own competitive motorcars rather than seeing a huge inrush of motorcars coming in increasing numbers from abroad. The best assessment that could be made has been made. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government do not pick their own timetable in matters of industrial rescue. There are cases which may be dictated by factors outside their own control.

IBM (European Parliament Report)

Mr. Moonman: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the European Parliament's report on the IBM company's domination in Europe, so far as his policy towards its recommendations are concerned.

Mr. Benn: I take it that the Question relates to the recent report on data pro

cessing prepared for the Economic and Social Committee of the EEC. That report makes recommendations for Community action, and it is for the European Commission to decide whether to put forward proposals to the Council of Ministers based on those recommendations.

Mr. Moonman: I am sure my right hon. Friend will be aware that for two years the committee has been vetting sharp practices by IBM in relating one company's production to another. Does he agree that a couple of things we could possibly do would be to approach ICL to see whether we could develop a proper computer strategy within Europe, whatever happens on 5th June, and to have a Green Paper setting out our thinking on the whole area of the electronics industry?

Mr. Benn: As to a study of the electronics industry, that is something that has concerned the Government. Due to the active and strong support which my hon. Friend has endorsed over the years for ICL, only 38 per cent. of the United Kingdom market is held by IBM whereas in the EEC as a whole it has 60 per cent. ICL's competitive performance in the United Kingdom is much stronger than in Europe; it has 32 per cent. of the market compared with IBM's 38 per cent. That is a satisfactory performance by ICL. I should be reluctant for political reasons to drive ICL into any arrangements which did not appear to make commercial sense to it. As my hon. Friend says, these international corporations can survive in or out of the Community.

Mr. Warren: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us of Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the recently-announced formation of the Minneapolis Honeywell-Bull and CII Company in France, which puts United States-dominated companies in first and second places in the British and European computer industries?

Mr. Benn: I thought that this question might arise. I am told that the Honeywell-Bull arrangements in France will not affect the United Kingdom, but clearly there is a powerful American domination in computers which makes it all the more sensible that we should continue with the policy adopted by both successive Governments of supporting ICL, which has made it as good a company as it now is.

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next plans to meet the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Benn: I met the chairman on 28th April and am still awaiting a reply to my request dated 6th May for a meeting with the Board of BSC and the unions.

Mr. Marshall: Is it not high time that the Secretary of State stopped using the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation as a whipping boy and turned the Government's attention to the vital question of deciding what is to be the investment programme of the corporation, particularly as it concerns Scotland and Wales? Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the recent saga bodes ill for the future of the aerospace and shipbuilding industries?

Mr. Benn: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. When the statements printed in the papers were brought to my attention and anxiety was expressed by the unions, I invited Sir Monty Finniston to come to see me. At the meeting I asked him to consider carefully whether the statements were correct or whether he had been misreported. I put some important matters of public policy to him in a letter. I had a response to the letter, in which he confirmed the truth of the Press reports and gave comments on the matters which I had raised with him. I asked the unions to look at these same problems and suggested a tripartite meeting after he had met the unions. I believe that that was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I believe that the board of any nationalised industry must recognise that it has to have a good working relationship with its own workers, that matters concerning jobs should be discussed with the unions and that the Government are bound inevitably to be concerned, even if only because of the investment implications.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the concern of ours in

Scotland is because most of the closure proposals are concentrated in areas of already high unemployment? Can he say whether he and the Government support the proposals which have been put forward by the board for work-sharing as opposed to plant-sharing if this appears to be the best way of holding the labour force together in present difficult times?
On a general point, can the Secretary of State say why we are importing so much steel into Britain today at the same time as we are closing so many plants because of a lack of demand?

Mr. Benn: On the first point, the hon. Gentleman is quite right: there is great anxiety in Scotland, though the anxiety is not confined to that area.
The hon. Gentleman asks me to comment on work-sharing or other arrangements. I think that it would be wrong for me to seek to engage in speculation about matters which are to be discussed between the British Steel Corporation and the unions.
On the question of the importing of steel, this is exactly the point I am making. In 1971–72, when there was a downturn of trade, the British Steel Corporation closed so much plant that when the upturn came we had to meet it by imports. It is not so very stupid for a Government to look long term at an industry and not to look at it simply on a month-by-month basis of demand. I have these three points in mind. My main concern is that these difficult matters should be discussed on a tripartite basis.

Mrs. Bain: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the limitations on the size of any corporation within the European Coal and Steel Community rule out any large-scale expansion of the Scottish Steel industry unless there is a Scottish steel corporation as a completely separate body? Does he not accept that the opposition to the establishment of such an organisation arises from the fact that the Scottish steel industry would prove to be a very formidable competitor of the English steel industry? Will he comment on the fact that an order for 20,000 tons of steel which could have been made at Cambuslang has been transferred to Scunthorpe?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have passed 3.10 p.m. I hope that the rest of this Question will be taken quite quickly.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady's point about a separate corporation for Scotland is well known, but it has not met with support among steel workers.

Mrs. Bain: Yes, it has.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Lady must allow me to give my interpretation. My own belief is that the main strength of those who work in the steel industry lies in their working together within the unions concerned and that it would weaken rather than strengthen this if they were to be divided. I am with the hon. Lady 100 per cent. as regards the question of management devolution further from the centre to the point to where the steel is made.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that there is very deep feeling throughout all the steel workers regarding possible lay-offs and that, for instance, at a meeting last night of no fewer than 2,500 people in Sheffield this feeling was being voiced all round the hall in personal conversations? Does he agree with me that at this moment a lobby of Parliament is about to take place and there is to be a demonstration here by people who are deeply concerned about the chairmanship of the British Steel Corporation, who are worrying themselves to death about the lay-offs that are about to come and who therefore want to know exactly what the position is?

Mr. Benn: I can confirm what my hon. Friend said about Sheffield because I was at the meeting to which he referred. There is a great deal of anxiety about redundancy. I make no apology to the House for being as concerned as the steel workers about their jobs. I think that is quite right. I am taking the opportunity this afternoon of meeting the people who have come to London to voice their anxieties. My belief is that this matter must be discussed between the corporation and the unions and that it must then move quickly to a proper tripartite examination of the matter between the unions, the corporation and the Government.

Mr. Tom King: The Secretary of State referred to the importance of good relations between management and all those who work in the steel industry. Does he feel that at this very delicate time between

management and unions, his addressing public meetings of people coming to London will do anything to help the situation? Finally, in view of the comments of the Secretary of State for Employment, will he confirm that there is still collective Cabinet responsibility for the steel industry?

Mr. Benn: The day that Ministers are afraid of meeting their own constituents, Parliament will perish and die. The hon. Gentleman has no business to say to a Member or a Minister that he should not meet people who have come to meet their representatives to express their anxieties. There is just as much anxiety among management in the steel plants throughout the country as there is among the people who are working as skilled and unskilled workers.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Pay Research Unit

Mr. Stokes: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he satisfied with the work done by the Pay Research Unit in comparing pay in the Civil Service with pay and conditions obtaining outside.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): Yes, Sir. I am entirely satisfied with the Pay Research Unit's work, which is to identify by objective studies comparable work outside the Civil Service and to report the facts about pay and conditions attaching to it.

Mr. Stokes: In view of the secrecy surrounding both the composition of this body and the scope of its work, how can the Minister convince the House that this body truly is independent? How can he be sure that the comparisons are valid, bearing in mind that civil servants' rates are now out of line with industry, that it is very hard to get the sack in the Civil Service and that the Civil Service is the only employer in England which has inflation-proof pensions?

Mr. Morris: As I indicated to the hon. Member in the reply which I gave to a Written Question of his on 12th May, there is no conspiracy or secrecy surrounding the composition of the Civil Service Pay Research Unit. In fact, the


names of the individuals who comprise the Pay Research Unit are published in the Civil Service Year Book. As for the pay facts which emerge from the deliberations and work of the Pay Research Unit, the Priestley Commission in 1956 laid it down as a general principle that civil servants were entitled to fair comparisons with the rates of pay and salaries enjoyed by workers in the private sector. All that the Civil Service Pay Research Unit seeks to do is to establish those rates of pay and make that information and analysis available for Ministers. It is Ministers who make decisions about the rates of pay of civil servants.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is general acceptance and a welcome of the findings of the Pay Research Unit and the way in which it operates and that there is no dispute on this matter between the staff side and the official side? However, is he aware that the abrupt decision to cancel the 1976 census gives rise to strains between the two sides? Would he care to comment on the fact that no consultations apparently took place before this decision was taken?

Mr. Morris: I well appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in the question of Civil Service conditions and the right of consultation. Naturally, as the Minister responsible for Civil Service pay and conditions I would expect all my ministerial colleagues to observe consultation in all matters.
The census is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I am aware that my hon. Friend has tabled a Question to her, and no doubt he will receive the appropriate answer in due course.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Will my hon. Friend accept that this pay agreement lies within the terms of the social contract? Is he aware that there are many civil servants and public servants in various parts of the country who recognize that this agreement demonstrates that this is the first Government for many years who have played fair with civil and public servants?

Mr. Morris: I am obliged by the comments of my hon. Friend in his recognition that in regard to the Pay Research Unit the Government have honoured the

principle of fair comparisons. I think it is right and proper that this Government should do so.

Yorkshire and Humberside

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants are currently employed in Yorkshire and Humberside; and how this compares with the other economic regions of England.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: At 1st April 1975 there were approximately 23,500 non-industrial civil servants employed in Yorkshire and Humberside. This is about 5½ per cent. of the total employed in economic planning regions in England. I will publish details in the Official Report.

Mr. Hooley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information. Is he aware that there is still very great concern and anxiety in Sheffield about the location of the Health and Safety Commission and parts of the Manpower Services Commission? Can he give any information about progress and discussions on these very important matters?

Mr. Morris: As the House will recognise, my hon. Friend has shown a consistent and almost monthly interest in the question of the location of the Manpower Services Commission and the Health and Safety Commission. I am mindful of his consistency in this matter, and I will convey his concern and interest in the question to my ministerial colleagues.

Following are the details:


REGION AND APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF NON-INDUSTRIAL CIVIL SERVANTS EMPLOYED AT 1st APRIL 1975:


South East
228,000


North West
47,000


South West
44,000


Northern
33,500


West Midlands
24,500


Yorkshire and Humberside
23,500


East Midlands
18,500


East Anglia
10,000

Comparable information about industrial civil servants is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Members' Working Conditions

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to improve working conditions for Members.

Mr. Edward Short: As my hon. Friend will be aware, a Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) is at present considering the general question of support facilities for back benchers. The first report of that Committee was published today, and I shall, with colleagues, be giving urgent consideration to its recommendations.
As regards accommodation, the conversion of the Norman Shaw (North) building has recently provided additional accommodation for some 130 Members. The Services Committee will continue to seek further means of improving our working conditions in the House.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern at the way in which this House is run, the way in which business is organised and the tremendous amount of legislation pouring out from Ministers, necessitating for a large number of full-time Members in this House I exclude those on the benches opposite who are not full-time — an 80- to 90-hour week? That does not include weekend work. This is having a tremendous toll on Members' life and health. Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is high time we had a complete reorganisation of the way in which the House is run and the way business is handled? Will he see that the overhaul takes place immediately?

Mr. Edward Short: The large volume of legislation this Session flows from the manifesto on which my hon. Friend and I fought the last election.

Mrs. Renée Short: Yes, a five-year programme—not a one-year programme.

Mr. Edward Short: I hope my hon. Friend will see to it that it is a rive-year programme. Certainly I agree that the time has come when the House must take a radical look at the way in which we do our business. I hope to make a proposal to the House later this Session.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that hon. Members who find their work here too much for them could easily apply for the Chiltern Hundreds?

Mr. Edward Short: No, Sir. I believe genuinely that there is a feeling that the time has come when we must look at

the way we carry out our business. We now have the great complication of European legislation, and any modern Government, of either party, intervene to a great extent, and increasingly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too much."] Perhaps too much, but those are the facts of life, and I think that Parliament itself has not kept up with this trend. I feel, therefore, that the time has come when we must look at this is a radical way.

Mr. Greville Janner: When my right hon. Friend is considering working conditions in this building, will he be good enough to consider the conditions for the staff and the hours they work? In particular, will he consider the conditions in which the police work, and to that end pay a visit to the small and inadequate mess room at St. Stephen's and inquire why the police still have no ventilation in the one room which is available to them?

Mr. Edward Short: Yes, Sir, I have been doing some of this investigation lately. For example, the doorkeepers may not know it, but I visited their dormitory recently to see the conditions in which they have to exist in this place. It is one of the consequences of the way in which we do our business that we impose great burdens on the staff, and I often think that we are not sufficiently grateful to the staff of the House for the way in which they serve us.

Mr. Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it that, apart from the noise going on at the moment, the Norman Shaw building offers excellent facilities for Members, and will he now consider the possibility of converting the other Norman Shaw building and scrapping once and for all the grandiose and ridiculous new parliamentary building project which was approved during the last Parliament?

Mr. Edward Short: I think that it will be possible to make a statement to the House on that and related matters in the very near future.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the workings of the Boyle Committee also have a bearing on the working conditions of many Members, and may we have some assurance about the way it is proceeding and when it is likely to report? Second, will


my right hon. Friend write to the editor of The Times to tell him that the report which he published on 28th April saying that Members of Parliament were against raising their salaries is wholly erroneous?

Mr. Edward Short: I do not write to the editor of The Times. On the other matter, I hope that the Boyle Committee will be able to submit a report to the Prime Minister in the month of June.

Mr. Speaker: If I were allowed a comment on this matter, I think that I should say that far too often I find a lot of hon. Members in rude health.

Staff

Mr. Moonman: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will now answer Questions relating to the salary and conditions of House of Commons staff.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): No, Sir. But I understand that Mr. Speaker will arrange for this information to be published.

Mr. Moonman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a need to relate all these salaries in the establishment in order to avoid some of the absurdities and ambiguities which now exist whereby chauffeurs receive £4,500 with overtime, Members of Parliament receive the same with or without overtime, clerks in the Library receive up to £6,100 and a number of officials can pick up a cool £10,000 a year?

Mr. Short: Since the statement of principles in 1970, the salaries paid to staff of the House have been kept broadly in line with those of the Home Civil Service.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say why he cannot divulge this information, since it is possible for a Member to go into the Library of the House and ask the library research staff to produce the information? Does he not agree that it is very important to recognise how badly off Members are compared with the officials who run this establishment? Can he say how many people have free board and lodgings here—or, at least, free lodgings—as compared with Members who have to scrap and scrape around in second- and third-class hotels?

Mr. Short: I cannot answer the last part of that supplementary question. The technical answer to the first part is that the responsibility lies with the Commissioners appointed under the House of Commons (Offices) Act 1812, and I am not one of the Commissioners. However, the constitution of the Commissioners is included in the terms of reference of the committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley). That is the technical reason why I cannot answer this Question. There is the other reason that it would not be desirable to have the salaries of individual officers of the House discussed on the Floor of the House. As I have said, Mr. Speaker has agreed to publish the figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — VOTING RIGHTS (OVERSEAS CITIZENS)

Mr. Adley: asked the Lord President of the Council what further representations he has received about the voting rights of British taxpayers working abroad, not on the current United Kingdom electoral register and thus unable to vote; and if he will move to appoint a Select Committee to consider this question.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerry Fowler): Since the representations to which my right hon. Friend referred in the answer he gave to to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on 30th April, he has received a petition on behalf of some 100 British residents in Spain about voting in the referendum and one or two other separate representations. He has no plans to ask the House to appoint a Select Committee to consider this question.

Mr. Adley: Would the Minister of State mind not sounding so patronising and complacent? Could he also stop smiling for a moment? Does he or does he not accept that the criterion of "no taxation without representation" is fair? If he accepts that, will he yet again consider the position of people who are still paying British taxes while working abroad temporarily and who are, therefore, not on the register?
Will the hon. Gentleman take this question seriously since the amendments to the Referendum Bill were rejected not on principle but on the basis that there was not enough time to deal with them properly? Will he at least consider setting up a Selection Committee to consider this matter?

Mr. Fowler: I will consider the hon. Gentleman's representations about whether I should smile or not when he ceases to use fourth-form humour in this House. Liability to pay tax would not be a satisfactory basis for any extension of the franchise. Such a liability falls on aliens as well as on British subjects. It arises in a multiplicity of ways—income tax, capital gains tax, corporation tax and VAT—and it would be inappropriate as a basis for determining an entitlement to vote. As to the future, it is a matter for the Speaker's Conference when Mr. Speaker reconvenes it.

Mr. Peyton: I hope the Minister will bear in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) needs no advice on how he should ask questions, certainly not from the Minister of State. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to take this question seriously and at least take on board, if he can, the fact that there are many British subjects abroad who feel outraged at being denied the opportunity to vote which they think is part of British citizenship?

Mr. Fowler: Nor do I need advice from the right hon. Member on how to answer questions in this House. As to the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's question, he knows full well that we have debated the referendum at length in this House and that we came to a conclusion. It is now too late to change that conclusion.

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFERENDUM

Mr. Hurd: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is satisfied with

progress made in organising the referendum on 5th June on British membership of the EEC.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hurd: Can the Minister of State give his latest estimate of the time at which the national result is likely to be known? Since that result will have an important bearing on several aspects of Government policy, whatever the result, can he assure us that there will be an early opportunity for the House to have a debate soon after we return after the recess?

Mr. Fowler: The timing is, of course, a matter for Sir Philip Allen, the Chief Counting Officer. He has said that he hopes that the vast majority of results, if not all the results, will be in by the Friday evening on 6th June. Some of the results from more outlying parts of the country may not be available until the Saturday. We hope, however, that the result will be known substantially by late on the Friday. As for the question of a debate, we have already undertaken that there will be a statement on the Monday.

Mr. Ioan Evans: In organising the referendum, will my hon. Friend reject the crocodile tears of Opposition Members concerning taxpayers who live abroad and who are not on the register? Does he recall that the party opposite rejected the idea of taxpayers and those on the register in this country having a vote, as they were against the referendum as such?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the usual rules relating to spoilt papers will apply in the case of counting the referendum votes? Can he confirm that there will be an opportunity for those concerned, one way or the other, to argue whether or not a paper is sufficiently spoiled for it to be ignored?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, Sir. I answered this point in the House recently when we debated the suggested amendments on what is now the Referendum Act. This is a matter for final decision by the counting officers in the counties and


regions. Sir Philip Allen is giving general guidance, and broadly the normal rules will apply.

Mr. Wigley: If a county seems by some accident to have an invalid result and a recount is required, will that recount take place if it will not affect the overall result in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Fowler: The question of an invalid result in a county is different because it depends on what is meant by "invalid". There will be a verification procedure. If the total number of ballots in the box were found not to correspond with the total number of ballots issued, there would have to be a recount at that stage. Subsequently Sir Philip Allen intends that there will be very careful counting in the counties in such a way as to make the total votes cast either way almost beyond dispute.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (DOCUMENTS)

Mr. Spearing: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the adequacy and availability of Government memoranda relating to EEC documents; in particular, those concerning the European Monetary Co-operation Fund and proceedings in this House related thereto, and the extent to which the United Kingdom is committed to the Fund's objectives of economic and monetary union and the progressive harmonisation of economic policies of member States.
There have been many points of order raised with regard to the accuracy and availability of memoranda in general, but I wish to draw to your particular attention, Mr. Speaker, those related to the European Monetary Co-operation Fund and Regulation 241/1973 and Regulation 731/1973, which I have submitted to you and which, in my submission, have been incomplete.
Neither of those explanatory memoranda incorporated the phrase in the EEC regulation as passed by the Council of Ministers—that is, Regulation 907 of 1973—which contained these words:
Whereas it is necessary to establish the Fund if Community objectives are to be attained, in particular as regards the progress-

sive harmonisation of the Member States' economic policies, the proper functioning of the common market and the establishment of economic and monetary union; whereas the Treaty made no provision for the powers essential to the establishment of the Fund.
Those words do not appear in the introductory memoranda. In the debate on 12th March I raised this matter but had no reply from the Minister. However, the Minister did give answers on 25th February before the Scrutiny Committee on European Secondary Legislation, in which he said that he did not think that the EMCF was
a means to that particular end".
The Chairman of the Select Committee interrupted the questioning at that point—that is, at Question No. 214—and said:
If I may say so, that is not within the framework of this Fund …
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that both the Minister and the Chairman of the Select Committee had been misled by the inaccurate and partial memoranda, since the objective of the fund is clearly stated in its preamble.
I gave notice to the Lord President and to the Treasury that I wished to raise this matter in an Adjournment debate, which I did, but the Lord President sent me a letter apologising for a mistake in his office which meant that he could not reply to that point in the debate. I am left, therefore, only with an opportunity to seek leave to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 to raise this matter, since it patently appears that both the Minister and the Chairman of the Select Committee have relied upon memoranda which have proved to be inadequate.
1 have, however, just received a letter from the Minister of State at the Treasury, in which, referring to the 1973 regulation which I have quoted, he says:
It contained preambular word;, fashionable at the time, looking forward to the progressive establishment of economic and monetary onion. This is not a matter of legal commitment.
If the preamble to an EEC regulation is not a matter of legal commitment, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this House should know why. The Long Titles of our Bills clearly show in the preamble the objective of the legislation, whatever it may be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Member considerable latitude, but


he must not go into the merits of the matter. He must merely convince me that there should be a debate on the matter this afternoon or tomorrow.

Mr. Spearing: I was coming to the end, Mr. Speaker, and I thought it right to quote from the letter which I had received from the Minister within the last half-hour.
I submit that this matter is obviously of importance, and is plainly urgent since various questions have to be decided after the House goes into recess for Whitsun, and I submit that it should have precedence over the Orders of the Day, possibly tomorrow when there is Treasury business. It may well be, if it is dealt with in that way tomorrow, that it will limit the number of amendments which we may wish to put down on similar business in the future.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for having given me notice of his intention to make his application and for having submitted to me a considerable memorandum on the subject, which I have carefully studied. Moreover, I have listened with care to the submission which the hon. Gentleman has just made.
As I said a few moments ago, I gave the hon. Gentleman considerable latitude because this is a matter of some complication, and I thought it right that he should have an opportunity to state his case. It is not for me to pronounce on the merits of his argument, as to whether it is sound or not. I have simply to decide whether the business of the House should be disrupted so that the matter may be debated. The business has already been arranged—the Prevention of Terrorism Order later today, and the Committee stage of the Finance Bill tomorrow—and I am not prepared to disrupt the business already fixed. I regret that my answer to the hon. Gentleman must be "No".

GRAMMAR AND DIRECT-GRANT SCHOOLS

3.38 p.m.

Mr. William Shelton: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the substitution of the rule by circular for the rule of law, and the reckless disregard by the Secretary of State for Education and Science of the harmful effects of his policy on educational standards.
It is with great pleasure that I open the debate on this motion. I thank the House for the opportunity, and I am grateful for the good fortune in the Ballot, which brought my name to the head of the list for this afternoon. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State in his place, together with his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, since I expect that much that is said today will turn on the views and actions of the right hon. Gentleman himself.
During the five years that I have had the privilege to be a Member of the House, I have never listened to a debate on education which the present Government party has not turned into a debate on selection. Whatever has been under discussion, hon. Members opposite have always talked about the evils or advantages and disadvantages—whatever they may be—of selection at 11. In that connection, I remind the House of the comments of hon. Members when I had the opportunity to move the Second Reading of my Education (Parents' Charter) Bill on 25th April. That had virtually nothing to do with selection at 11, but we were none the less interested to hear many speeches dealing with that very subject.
In the motion I include a condemnation of the Secretary of State's actions which I believe, as do many others, are proving harmful to educational standards. First, there is growing concern on both sides of the House about educational standards. I do not propose to belabour the point or give many figures. This has been done many times in the past. I wish only to draw attention to the problems of literacy and academic ability.
We were all pleased that the Bullock Report was not as damnatory as many of us feared. At least that report was not complacent.
I wish to quote from a study entitled "Educational Priorities" published by the Department of Education on reading ability in Liverpool, Birmingham, Deptford and the West Riding.
Thousands of children leave inner city primaries at 11 unable to read even a simple sentence.
I wish also to quote from the Teacher magazine, an impeccable publication, which on 17th May last year said that ILEA, after a survey, had found that
Over half the sample of 16-year old day-release had reading levels below the average of 10-year-olds.
That cannot give one cause for complacency. It must be a cause for concern.
Let me turn to the question of truancy. Again, many figures are given on that subject. A good comprehensive school in South London estimates that it has about 18 per cent. absenteeism, and its truancy figure is estimated at perhaps half the figure of absenteeism. Parents do not always co-operate and, therefore, it is well-nigh impossible to get an exact truancy figure. Nevertheless, there is no cause for complacency, but cause only for concern.
On the subject of violence and indiscipline, I wish to draw attention to an exercise undertaken by the National Association of Schoolmasters. That again shows no cause for complacency and again is a matter for concern.
I believe, as do many others, that part of the problem lies in the inherent dilemma which exists, especially in the all-through 11–18 comprehensive schools, partciularly in urban areas and deprived areas. We are coming to the conclusion that if such schools are large enough to provide for adequate sixth form studies, they are too large to be able to control the students in terms of discipline. They are certainly too large for the pupil to identify himself with the school. If, on the other hand, they are small enough to control in terms of discipline and identification they do not have an adequate sixth form to cover all the options which a child in a comprehensive school should be able to enjoy in respect of his studies. This dilemma has come to the forefront in the last five years. It is increasingly becoming recognised, and must be taken on board by the Secretary of State.
I should like to give some examples relating to schools in the South London area. The first school to which I refer is my local grammar school, Battersea Grammar School. The present plans are completely to abolish the grammar school and move it lock, stock and barrel to a new site and to merge it on that site with another school. Therefore, it will be a school on at least two sites—possibly three, since no doubt the rump will remain for a while in the present Battersea Grammar School building.
The Battersea Grammar School has a roll of 600 pupils, 150 in the sixth form all undertaking three or more A-levels. Those pupils average 18 or 19 options. In the same area is a comprehensive school with a sixth form entry, but with a total roll of about 1,000. That school is perhaps slightly larger than it should be. It has 60 pupils in the sixth form; 22 pupils are taking A-levels, and only six pupils are taking two or more A-levels. Those pupils are offered eight options. Last year there were no options in the sixth form in languages, physics, chemistry or biology. Therefore, on the one hand we have a school with 600 pupils, 150 of whom are in the sixth form, and on the other hand a school of 1,000 pupils, only six of whom are going for two or more A-levels.
It may be said that that school is unrepresentative. Therefore, let me cite another large comprehensive school—a good one with a roll of 2,000, 40 in the first form of the sixth form, some of whom are taking two or more A-levels, but there are only 13 options. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation, there is no doubt that if the Battersea Grammar School merges with the comprehensive there must be a falling off in academic ability for the pupils in the merged school. There will not be as many pupils undertaking academic studies at the same level.
It may be said that academic ability or teaching at that level is not important. I do not propose to go into that argument this afternoon, but I only wish to venture my opinion that I believe academic ability is important.
Labour Members may take the view that the result which I have outlined in my earlier remarks is due to the fact that the comprehensive schools in that area are creamed off by the three grammar


schools in the catchment area concerned. Let me try to deal with that argument.
Let us consider what will occur if it is sought to close the three grammar schools, each with three form entries. That would result in 270 A-stream pupils having to go to comprehensive schools in the area covered by the three closed grammar schools. There are 25 comprehensive schools in the area, at which the average is an eight form entry at each school. The closure of the grammar schools would mean that there would be fewer than two additional A-stream pupils in each of the first-year forms of those 25 comprehensive schools, if the numbers were averaged out.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: That is an absurd argument. Why pick on the 270 A-stream pupils? Surely all the other pupils in the three grammar schools have passed the selective examination or the 11-plus, which some of us do not think suitable. Those pupils will also have higher academic standards. Why does the hon. Gentleman pick on the 270 pupils for comment?

Mr. Shelton: If the three grammar schools close, there will be initially a redistribution which is much larger. The situation will not settle down for some time. Then there will be an intake of only 270 additional pupils. Within three or four years there would be a further 270 to 300 pupils going into the comprehensive schools—and they are pupils who would have gone into the grammar schools had they not been closed. The moment those grammar schools are closed, there will be a bulge which will disappear within a space of some years.
It is no argument to say that because not all children can enjoy academic ability, then none should. I am sure that Labour Members would not subscribe to any argument based on envy.
As I have said in the House before, I do not believe that selection at 11-plus can be defended educationally. As Mr. Stuart Maclure said in an interesting article in The Times Educational Supplement recently, in the long run we might wish to move towards a middle school system. With the limited information at my disposal, I believe that this is the way our system should move. Nevertheless, we do not know that for certain. In five or ten years we might be criticis-

ing that system in the same way as I am today criticising the large all-through comprehensive system.
That is why we on this side have said repeatedly, and I am saying again, that we need an independent inquiry—not in any atmosphere of criticism but to seek information so that we know which way to go with our educational development. That is why until we know whether the middle school, the sixth-form college, selection at 14 or mixed ability teaching is right—we do not know, and I do not believe that the Secretary of State knows more than most of us—we should keep good schools of whatever sort. Let us discover the problems in the maintained sector and see which way we need to move. Meanwhile, for heaven's sake let us keep good schools until we know the right way to go.
One feels almost immoral defending selection, but when I have finished I hope that the Under-Secretary will agree with me in what I have to say about the Secretary of State's statement that he will end all selection by 1980, or whatever the date was—perhaps it should have been 1984. I defy Labour Members to deny the urgent and essential need to select at the earliest possible age educationally subnormal children, for instance, or handicapped children, those who are partially sighted or hard of hearing.
Would we not agree that the earlier that such disabilities are discovered—the earlier that those children are selected and move into special tuition—the better it is for them? I would defy any hon. Member to disagree with that.

Sir John Hall: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it is also essential to identify and select at an early age the brilliant child who is not catered for under the present system?

Mr. Shelton: If my hon. Friend will have patience, he will find that that is what I am about to say.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we get delegation after delegation of people representing the handicapped who say that for too long they have been segregated and isolated and that they should be integrated into the normal


system so far as possible so that they can fit in more easily in adult life?

Mr. Shelton: The hon. Gentleman might remember that in a speech a few weeks ago when I was trying to persuade him to accept my Parents' Charter I said that many handicapped children should be educated in the main stream and that the parents' opinion should hold sway. But some educationally subnormal children need special tuition—dyslectic children, for example. Perhaps the grey area should be moved one way or another, but I do not believe that he would disagree with the principle.
Athletically endowed children are very much singled out for praise and honour in school, and in later life, when they triumph on the football field, for great monetary rewards as well. They are heroes. The academic child is not a hero at school, and perhaps never has been. The only question for hon. Members to consider is why the academically brilliant child should be the only one not singled out for special attention.
Among the arguments against selection, I believe, are that it depends on assessment and, therefore, causes anxiety, that failure to pass the 11-plus gives a sense of inferiority, that the presence of the clever child in the school inspires the less clever, and—perhaps the key argument—that non-selection promotes social unity or, the reverse, that selection is divisive. These have always seemed to me arguments of some weight against selection.
The creation of anxiety should be avoided, but if one says that there should not be, to use a pejorative phrase, sheep and goats, is it not better to distinguish early a pupil's abilities in order to give him special help if he needs it? One of my local comprehensive schools has the last year started remedial classes in reading and writing. I applaud it for that. There are many schools which do not have remedial classes yet because they have not identified those who need that special help. As for the argument that the presence of the clever child inspires the less clever, might it not be possible that his presence would depress the less clever?
There is a confusion of thought among those who adduce the argument of social

equality against selection. The neighbourhood comprehensive school which draws from a small catchment area is, in some areas of London that we all know too well, a vast secondary modern school. In other cases, when the school is sited in a middle-class area, it is a vast grammar school. The result of a neighbourhood comprehensive with a narrow catchment area is selection by the purse, which I deplore. Some house agents in London show the catchment areas of local schools. A house within the catchment area costs £200 or £300 more than an identical house the other side of the magic line. If that is not selection—not by ability but by ability of the parents to pay—I do not know what selection is.
I have no credentials to speak of the early Socialists, but I understand that they always wanted the child to make his way by merit. They wanted to ensure that if he were good he would have the opportunity to move out of his locality into a grammar school some distance away, perhaps, because it had a large catchment area.
I have said that I do not defend selection at 11-plus, but these questions have not yet been answered. Until they are answered, it is fundamentally damaging to our education system to bulldoze through schemes of compulsory comprehensive education, destroying good schools like Battersea Grammar School. These questions are being raised increasingly. A groundswell of anxiety is apparent throughout the country, to which Ministers seem entirely deaf. Except when the Secretary of State ventures into the sphere of education, he is a moderate man, but then he might well be his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry in a mantle of moderation, which he tears aside as he advances on the schools in his path. He has not answered these questions and it is not within his power to answer them until some kind of independent inquiry has taken place.
I would merely call his attention to the fact that in the State system in America there is selection not only in San Francisco but in New York. I can give the Secretary of State chapter and verse for this if he wishes. We are told that Sweden is the Socialist paradise. By the age of 13 and by the end of the sixth grade all those who are going on to


Gymnasium, which also means university entrants, are already selected. In Russia there are not only specialist and boarding schools for those who are mathematically gifted, but there is the system, which is common throughout Russia, whereby all children are judged equal in their first year at school but promotion from class to class is only on merit. At any given time, therefore, there can be up to 30 per cent. of a class of students repeating, and a percentage of children never complete the course at all. I am not advocating that method, but I am saying that even the most Socialist or Communist countries do not disregard the laws of human nature, as the Secretary of State seems to be trying to do. Before we take these irrevocable steps, at least we should try to find out what we are doing and what the result will be.
Therefore, it is against this background of anxiety and concern by the whole spectrum of educationists, teachers, many parents and I hope many hon. Members that the Secretary of State is issuing his circulars and writing his letters in an attempt to browbeat local authorities into changing their views in accordance with his. I remember a cartoon of a boss talking to a secretary and saying to her "I do not want you to agree with me. I want you to think like I do." This seems to be the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. I am glad to see that he is shaking his head.
First, what he is attempting to do is against the wishes of the involved parents. The meetings we have seen, the lobbies we have had and the letters that the Under-Secretary has received would show that at least all those parents involved in this change are passionately opposed to the Secretary of State's plans.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is the hon. Member implying, by his use of the novel phrase "involved parents", that some parents are more equal than others when we take decisions about schools in this House?

Mr. Shelton: I am saying that some parents are more involved than others. Some parents have children who are affected and therefore they are involved. Some parents have children who are not affected and therefore, perhaps, they are not involved. I am using the word "involved"

in its usual dictionary sense and not in its political sense.
Secondly, as far as we can gather, teachers are also opposed to the plans of the Secretary of State. A poll published in The Times Educational Supplement on 4th October last year showed that the majority of teachers were in favour of retaining grammar schools.
The Minister is doing this without an independent inquiry, and without—at least yet—coming to this House for legislation, which he has admitted he will need if these local authorities hold out against his wishes. He is using—as I shall hope to show—resolutions which were framed for a completely different purpose, to achieve his ends so far as direct grant schools are concerned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) will be able to explain—should he catch your eye, Mr. Speaker—perhaps, with more learning than I have, the Secretary of State is doing this at a cost. This weekend the right hon. Gentleman, when referring to the forthcoming cuts in the education service, is quoted as saying:
it is a very painful choice, painful for me and painful for local councillors.
He might well have added that it will be painful for parents, teachers and, perhaps more important, children. Let us accept that it will be painful for him and for local councillors.
I do not know whether it is unparliamentary to use the word "threat", but the threats of the right hon. Gentleman fall into three categories. The first category is that he has said that he will not give any money for school buildings if the councils do not fall in with his designs. That is the first threat which is contained in his infamous Circular No. 4/74 and which has been backed in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). I have received the Secretary of State's reply this morning, which I read with great interest.
His second threat is to use regulations under Section 100 of the 1944 Act to end direct-grant schools.
His third threat is of proposed legislation. He is quoted in the article published in the Labour Counsellor as saying:
I have a bill already in draft form.


That is another thunderbolt up his sleeve. I imagine that it is probably the same Bill as that which fell in 1970, so he has probably not had to do much work on it.
I understand that the Secretary of State has castigated at least seven councils—perhaps many more—as rebel councils for not falling in with his wishes. I should like to refer him to an interesting letter in The Times Educational Supplement which said that phrases such as this were the last resort of the demagogue thwarted in the unconstitutional use of power. They are not rebel councils. They are councils operating and acting entirely within the law of this land. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to change that law, his remedy is here in the House of Commons. Meanwhile, to adumbrate that such councils are in some way behaving improperly is, with respect, itself improper.
The first point is that he would withhold money for building purposes. In the letter of reply which he sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, he said:
School building programmes, as such, are administrative instruments without legal significance.
The right hon. Gentleman says that they are instruments of administration with no legal significance. What is the result, if such an instrument, without legal significance, has a legal result—a result which affects the legality of the position? If money were refused for essential new buildings, it might prevent local education authorities from carrying out their statutory duty under Section 8 of the 1944 Act. I shall not weary the House with that Section, but it lays on local authorities a duty in general
… to afford for all pupils opportunities for education offering such variety of instruction".
If an education authority were not granted the money for educational business, which therefore would prohibit it from carrying out its duties under that Act, that authority would be in breach of the law as a result of the use of an administrative instrument. In the letter the right hon. Gentleman said that this could be tested in the courts. We all know of the limitless funds that the Government have when they choose to go to court. What about the parents when they choose to go to court? The dice are loaded against parents

in a case like this, for financial reasons. As a corollary it may well happen that if the local education authority were in breach of its statutory duty, on complaint the Secretary of State could use his default powers under the 1944 Act, declare the LEA in default and give directions. Perhaps he could do this in the same way as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. Having in one way or other harried business to such an extent that they near failure and then come to him, he nationalises them. If the right hon. Gentleman—and hypothetically it is possible—denied this building money for schools and they became in fault in that they were unable to fulfil statutory duties, they might well then be in default and he would be able to give them directions. This is something which may have to be tested in court. We do not know.
I want to comment on the position of the voluntary aided schools and the menacing Circular 4/74, which contained these cordial words:
In the case of voluntary aided schools the governors cannot expect to continue to receive the substantial financial aid which their schools enjoy"—
unless they fall in with his wishes. That may be so, but is it legal to do this? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. My understanding is that the voluntary aided schools receive two forms of remuneration, one from the LEA and the other from the Secretary of State, to cover building and external repairs. In both cases my understanding is that there is a statutory duty so to do, and this statutory duty cannot be abrogated by a decision of the Secretary of State without coming to the proper place—the Floor of the House—to ask for powers so to do. Of course, that denies the different problems of the articles of association, the trust deeds and the articles governing the conduct of governors of all these voluntary aided schools.
The second menace uttered by the right hon. Gentleman against direct-grant schools he is rapidly putting into practice. He is proposing to abolish them by resolution. I refer him to Section 100 of the 1944 Act, which says that
The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the payment by him ‖
and so on. I do not deny that in the stricter interpretation of the law, he is


enabled to use these regulations in any way he wishes. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that those who drafted the 1944 Act intended the regulations to be used for the furtherance and continuance of those schools and not for their fundamental change and destruction. Should anyone doubt that, I can only refer him to the fact that these schools have been in existence for 30 years and it has never occurred to a previous Secretary of State to use the regulations in such a way. Therefore, I question the view that these regulations can indeed be used in the way that the right hon. Gentleman is intending to use them.
There are several points from this great letter which have caused grave concern and alarm among the staff of the schools and much of the public. Indeed, some of the teachers' unions have been concerned too. For instance, no assurances are given that the staff of the direct-grant schools will be retained should they go into the maintained system. I understand that it has been mentioned that talks will be held. Do the staff categorically have guarantees of employment? Is a guarantee given that headmasters will continue to be employed at the same level at which they are being employed now? These points have not been answered.
Secondly, it has been said that the capitation grant will continue for all those students presently at the school and at the school until September of next year. However, these schools will be at liberty to increase their fees. If the capitation grant is not increased, the parents will have to make up the difference presumably. Can an assurance be given that no additional cost will fall on the parents of pupils at those direct-grant schools which come into the maintained sector? Nothing yet has covered that point.
Thirdly, in the letter about courses the following phrase is used:
Everything possible should be done that pupils already in the school will continue the same type of course.
I do not believe that the phrase "everything possible" is good enough. We should have a categoric assurance that pupils will not have their courses changed in mid-term or mid-year, or in the middle of their time at the schools. An assurance should be given that they can complete

the course of study set out for them until they leave the school. This must be guaranteed.
I very much trust that on this point the right hon. Gentleman will give us the assurance today that he will come to the House for an affirmative resolution for these regulations and will not allow something of such fundamental importance to be passed merely by negative resolution. I hope that he will at least give the House an option to debate them openly on an affirmative resolution.
Finally, with the background of uncertainty, this authoritarian arbitrary action by the right hon. Gentleman is taking place at a time of national crisis and stringency. It is taking place at a time when the Secretary of State is saying that teachers will be unemployed and that the milk cuts will not be restored—not only for reasons of economy; it has been decided that it is unnecessary to restore the milk cuts for reasons of health. That will be interesting to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. No doubt Labour Members will have forgotten entirely the comments they made when the milk cuts were made and their pledges to restore them. I am sure their comments and pledges have passed completely from their minds. Perhaps it is unfair of me to remind them.
However, here we have this uncertain background in the education world and an economic crisis, and the right hon. Gentleman is driving through, against most of the wishes of those involved, his doctrinaire schemes, which will cost the State money—money which could well be spent on employing more teachers, perhaps.
In the letter from which I have quoted, for the first time we see an admission that indeed the abolition of direct-grant schools may cost something. The beautiful phrase used, which I am sure was drafted with great care, is
The Government's decision will result in some savings and some additional expenditure. The exact balance cannot be predicted but it is not thought that there will be a substantial net addition.
A "substantial increase", if one is speaking of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may be to the tune of £ 3,000 million or £ 4,000


million. On the other hand, it may be to the tune of a few hundred pounds. I hope that we shall learn what is meant by "a substantial addition". I cannot believe that the words I have just quoted could have been written unless a calculation had been made. The House should learn what that calculation is.
I should like to point out merely that the fees received by direct-grant schools are about £ 11 million a year. If they all move over to the State system, presumably that would be an immediate cost of £11 million a year. Then there is the capital expenditure, which could be about £70 million. Therefore, one must ask how much is "substantial"£5 million, £10 million £20 million or £50 million?—in the light of the cuts in the education service which are predicted by the right hon. Gentleman in the article to which I have referred. Might it be better not to cut the services and not to abolish, for instance, the direct-grant schools?
The Daily Telegraph—which I do not suppose hon. Members opposite regard as their favourite newspaper—had an interesting leader on 9th May 1975. May I remind hon. Gentlemen that a good many hundreds of thousands of people in this country read that newspaper? The leader was entitled "Our Own Huns", and it rather savagely attacked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Education and Science for suggesting that universities should sell their treasures to meet their additional costs. I understand from later correspondence that this was made in jest. It amused me, because at the time his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responsible for the arts was saying that private individuals, because of wealth tax, would be forced to sell their treasures to the universities, so one saw a certain contradiction in voices at that time.
The leading article went on to say of the right hon. Gentleman that "nothing worse can come." Then it went on to ask the question, nevertheless after him
what rough beast, its hour come round at last, will slouch towards the Education Ministry to replace him".
Purely by chance—I am sure with no malevolence aforethought—all the newspapers next day were suggesting that the

Secretary of State for Industry would shortly be moved to the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I very much hope that that will not happen
To sum up, in my view—and, I believe, that of many people—the right hon. Gentleman has a bad case on educational grounds, he has a very doubtful case on legal grounds, and he has a bankrupt case on moral grounds.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): This debate has two hours 40 minutes to run, and 12 right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I do not intend to compete with the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) either in the length of his speech or, indeed, in going over the arguments for and against selection in the way that he did, for I believe that the argument about the 11-plus, the argument whether it is right or wrong to select children at the age of 11, was substantially won in most parts of this country some time ago.
I want to speak mostly about the direct-grant schools, but before doing so I should like to comment on the sheer effrontery of the motion:
That this House deplores the substitution of the rule by circular for the rule of law ‖
How a representative of a party which issed Circular 10/70, which purported to offer local authorities freedom of choice, but which operated totally capricious criteria, which no Education Minister, including the hon. Gentleman opposite, was ever able to explain to anybody throughout the whole of his period in office passes my comprehension.
During the years when the Conservative Party was in power I had the privilege of being out of the House of Commons, and in the course of my duties I used, among other things, to attend Press conferences given by Education Ministers of the Conservative Party, so I can vouch for its total inability either to say or even know what were its criteria for secondary education on which it operated Circular 10/70.
I should like to devote my speech to the direct-grant schools, since they are


mentioned in the motion, and it is important to remind the House of some of the background. This argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you will know, is one of extreme antiquity. It is not as though my right hon. Friend's recent decision to end the direct-grant schools is a sudden decision on this problem.
The direct-grant schools were invented by accident by the "Geddes axe" in 1921, when Lord Geddes thought he could save a bit of money. This whole matter of direct-grant schools was debated very fully in the House when the 1944 Education Act was in Committee. I can do no better than quote from the Official Report of the debate on the Education Bill in Committee, when Mr. Silkin—the late Lord Silkin moved the amendment which was designed to put direct-grant schools in exactly the same position as all other secondary schools. He had strong grounds for doing so, because the Fleming Committee, which had been appointed by Lord Butler, had just reported that this should be so and that direct-grant schools should be prohibited in future from charging fees. This was in 1944, over 30 years ago. Mr. Silkin, as he then was, quoted from Lord Butler's own White Paper of 1944, which had said that:
A system under which fees are charged in one type of post-primary school and prohibited in the other offends against the canon that the nature of a child's education should be determined by his capacity and promise and not by the financial circumstances of his parent."—[Official Report, 28th March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 1273.]
That was not said by me. It was said by Lord Butler in 1943. If we cannot make any better progress than this, I do not know what we have been doing for the last 30 years in Parliament.
It might be worth mentioning that subsequent to that there was a revolt against the coalition Government, led by such revolutionaries as the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). It did not quite succeed and the direct grants remained, but they remained against the advice of an expert committee, the Fleming Committee, and against the Government White Paper of the day, so let us not have any talk about sudden decisions to get rid of the direct-grant schools.
While we are on the subject of antiquities, it is worth mentioning that most direct-grant schools were founded by very

pious men specifically for poor children. That was the only reason for their foundation. One of them, very near my constituency, Alleyn's School, was founded by Edward Alleyn, who made a packet of money out of the Elizabethan entertainment industry, had great doubts whether he would go to heaven, and felt that by leaving his money for almshouses for the elderly and education for the poor he might somehow avoid too long a stay in purgatory before he went to heaven. Very rapidly that school became a school for the children of the rich, and one of the by-products has been to keep poor old Edward Alleyn in purgatory all this time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science can take credit for allowing him out and letting him go to heaven at last. I think he should be very pleased with that.
I think it is worth mentioning this, because many of the direct-grant schools are owned by Roman Catholics and they have taken their foundation articles seriously. Very many Roman Catholic grammar schools—

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: They take the doctrine of purgatory seriously as well.

Mr. Price: That may be something to do with it. In many Roman Catholic direct-grant schools no fees have been charged almost since the 1944 Education Act. They have taken their responsibilities to the community seriously, so that in my strictures against direct-grant schools I do not include the Roman Catholic ones, but I do include those schools which were founded for the poor and are now substantially schools for the middle class.
I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend has decided to act upon direct-grant schools at last, because I think that one of the most important effects will be to bring together all the young people of the community in the same school in a way that has not taken place in the past. Conditions in our urban areas are such that we shall not solve them if young people who inevitably will hold positions of great responsibility receive their education in institutions quite separate from people for whom they will take decisions and with whom they will have to live. If for no other reason, the incentive that the Government's action


on direct-grant schools will give to the leaders of our communities to co-operate with their local State system and not to try to opt out of it, will do a great deal of good.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Is it not the case that if we force out of the maintained sector into the private sector schools of proven academic worth certain parents will chase and follow them and, therefore, their involvement and interest in the maintained schools will diminish and leading local people will take less interest in the State sector?

Mr. Price: That is a problem. I say this against the background of a growing determination within the Labour Party not only to deal with the direct grant schools but to come to an agreement about the future of the independent sector.

Sir George Sinclair: Surprise, surprise …

Mr. Price: Again, that is not my policy. If the hon. Gentleman reads the debates on the Education Act 1944 he will see that hon. Members on both sides were greatly concerned that, because the major report of the Fleming Committee came out after the Act, the public schools would be left out. Hon. Members on both sides expressed concern that the public schools as well as the direct-grant schools should play their full part in the national system of education that was being planned in 1944. Therefore, I have Lord Butler on my side—or I did then. I do not know whether I do now.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is naturally getting a great deal of protest from parents who have children at the direct-grant schools, but I should like him to take heed of the pressure from the other direction. I should like him to reconsider the circular which he sent out. There are far too many loopholes in it to allow direct-grant schools to exist for several years without having to take any definitive action.
I understand that by the circular the direct-grant schools are asked to send a letter of intent from the governing body pledging a willingness to take part at some unspecified date in some unspecified way in the maintained sector. For many

hon. Members on this side of the House that may not be good enough. The worst possible end to this problem would be that some direct-grant schools would take my right hon. Friend's word seriously and try to integrate with the maintained sector. Others would opt out, which they have the right to do, and become independent. However, others would use his circular simply as a means of procrastination to maintain their present status into the foreseeable future.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give us some reassurance on that matter. In education circles there is a consensus that the direct-grant system has come to the end of its useful life. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has read in The Times Educational Supplement not the article about the 14-plus—which contains some interesting ideas, since the difference between the ages of 14 and 16 is not all that great—but the original article about direct-grant schools. The Times Educational Supplement is not a Left-wing publication. Indeed, its editor, whom I very much respect, is sometimes thought to be the friend and mentor of the Conservative Central Office. I have no idea whether that is true, but some people tell me that it is so.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Not me.

Mr. Price: The Times Educational Supplement made a plea for the ending of the direct-grant system cleanly, quickly and once and for all so that people know where they are.
I beg my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to go slow on this problem. I know the tradition of the civil servants in the Department, because I have been in it. They like to ease and inch people along. That is to a great extent how we went comprehensive in the 1960s. However, I humbly suggest that that is not the correct technique on this occasion. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear fairly soon to Parliament and to the direct-grant schools that on a certain date the substantive direct grant will finish except for those children already in the schools.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: The speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price)


was one which we should have expected to hear from a former education correspondent of the New Statesman. It was entertaining, rather mystifying and wholly unconvincing. The case against direct-grant schools needs to be deployed better than the hon. Gentleman deployed it if anyone on this side of the House is to go into the Government Lobby when the legislation threatened by the Secretary of State is introduced.
Like the hon. Member, I shall devote most of my remarks to the question of the direct-grant schools. I declare my interest, because for many years I have been a governor of a direct-grant school and one of my children attends a direct-grant school. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West raises his eyebrows. He might like to know that I know of three ex-Labour Cabinet Ministers whose daughters were successfully educated at the same school, and I believe that they have praised its academic standards.
I am glad that the Secretary of State is present, although apparently he will not reply to the debate. I noted the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) about the right hon. Gentleman. I propose to attack him, so I am glad that he is here. On a personal basis, I like the right hon. Gentleman. He is a courteous, friendly person. However, he is portrayed in the Press as a moderate Cabinet Minister. He is not. He is an immoderate Cabinet Minister on education matters. In his way, he is every bit as bad as the fanatical Secretary of State for Industry in trying to push forward Socialist-type legislation. If the right hon. Gentleman remains in his job, we shall see the destruction of a very good education system which has been built up since the passing of the Education Act 1944, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Perry Barr—

Mr. Christopher Price: It used to be Perry Barr. It is Lewisham, West now.

Mr. Smith: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He moves round constituencies so much that one tends to forget.
On other subjects the Secretary of State has had a reputation for moderation, as I knew when I was at the Department of Employment. He had such a reputation

when he was in government in another capacity. He should understand that the rights of minorities must be considered.
The Secretary of State could perhaps say that more people were in favour of abolishing the 11-plus than were against abolishing it. There might be more people in favour of abolishing direct-grant schools. But there is a substantial body of informed opinion—not just the prejudiced opinion of people who have children at direct-grant schools---which thinks that it would be very damaging to the education system if direct-grant schools were abolished. This system of education draws pupils from all ranges and levels of society. Often the reason parents of quite modest means support these schools is the immense range that they cover. Comprehensive schools usually draw their pupils from one particular district, and mostly from the same social range. An imbalance could be created by parents moving around deliberately to areas which have very good comprehensive schools and avoiding those which will be the slums of tomorrow.
The threat to withdraw the grant from the 174 direct-giant schools in England and Wales and the 26 grant-aided schools in Scotland means that those of us who are very much concerned with the direct-grant system as governors, staff, parents or simply supporters are faced with three choices. We must see these schools absorbed into the maintained system, or we must see them go fully independent, which will be extremely costly for many of the parents who will wish to support them. The third possibility is that they will be closed and lost for ever, in which case an outstanding element in our educational history will have gone for good.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who, I am sure, within a very short time will be the Secretary of State for Education, will have the courage to restore grants to the direct-grant schools where they have to go independent. I hope very much that he or one of his colleagues who fills I hat particular office in the next Conservative administration will encourage the introduction of more direct-grant schools so that the system will be expanded rather than curtailed as is presently threatened.
The thing which impresses me about our debates on fundamental issues such as this is that we see Socialism always seeking to bolster the failures while never quite getting round to doing other than penalising the successful. As has been said for the last 25 or 30 years, education needs a levelling-up of all standards with a dichotomy across the board giving a variety of different schools to cater for different types of child. We do not want selection by the purse or a system which enables people merely to buy education. We want to be able to mix children of different social ranges and backgrounds and to be able to encourage children, whatever their background, who show great ability. We want them to be able to get on far more successfully than they would in the comprehensive system.
There are many major unanswered questions about the comprehensive system. Those questions need to be answered before we plunge finally and totally into it. Obviously, Labour Members can get cheap and superficial cheers at public meetings by saying that they want the 11-plus system abolished. I am also against the 11-plus system. Many years ago I was a member of the Middlesex County Council education committee. We were abolishing that system while maintaining grammar schools. We were introducing a system of selection, over a period which was far fairer than selection at 11-plus with examinations taken on one or two days by which a child's whole future was decided.
The case for the retention of some form of selection is academically formidable. The whole process of life is one of selection. Whichever system we have, be it comprehensive or anything else, there will still have to be selection. There will still be people who are bright and intelligent and others who are dull and will need special help. There will still need to be various gradings simply so that the brighter children are not held back while the slower children catch up. Those who are too slow must be given the necessary attention if they are not to sink.
Our direct-grant schools are among our finest and they have produced many of those who today are the leaders of the professions, the arts and industry. Many of those people have come on in the

period since the end of the last war and have reached positions which were previously occupied by people of great privilege and power. These products of the direct-grant system often originate from humble homes.
I know that the Secretary of State thinks deeply on political subjects. He must, therefore, consider whether he is being slightly misled by some of his colleagues in this mindless pursuit of egalitarianism in getting rid of direct-grant and grammar schools. He is entitled to his Socialist principles and ideals, but he must see the merit in having variety and the opportunity to encourage and improve our education system without making it a blanket, uniform and dull system which in the long run will level down rather than raise up.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, I should have thought that the Government at present had enough problems without having to start meddling in a system which is doing well. Surely this is not the time for them to start changing the education system in a way which will cost money and cause great resentment and confusion. First things must come first. The Government must get the economic situation right and bring inflation under control. When that has been achieved they can look rather more coolly and calculatingly at the education system.
The Secretary of State need not think that he will have an easy ride in abolishing the direct-grant system. Many parents and supporters of the system—not necessarily Tories—bitterly resent this approach and believe it to be partisan and unfair. They feel that it has not been properly thought through. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, even at this stage, will think again.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Davies: I welcome this debate, particularly since I was not able to discuss with the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) the question of the parents' charter, which was debated at his instigation only about a fortnight ago.
The motion involves us in three basic propositions in this aspect of education. First, we must consider the general question of direct-grant schools and voluntary


aided schools. Secondly, we have to decide whether the powers of the Secretary of State do or should extend to those seeking to approach education on a selective basis. Thirdly, we face the issue of whether the concept of comprehensive education, which has the support of the vast majority of the British people, can co-exist with the selective system, even though selection applies only to about 3 per cent. of the population.
I would have had much greater respect for Opposition arguments if I had thought that Conservative Members were defending a crucially systematic element in our educational provision. However, quite clearly they are seeking to defend a historical accident. We are not talking about a systematic group of schools offering a countrywide opportunity for children to enjoy such benefits as are supposed to exist in selective education. These schools cover only limited areas. If Conservative Members are suggesting that the direct-grant system extends the concept of choice to all pupils and parents, perhaps they will explain why that choice is available in Lancashire and Yorkshire and, to a certain extent, in London, but not to vast areas of the country elsewhere which do not have direct-grant schools. Since the Opposition have never advocated that the direct-grant system should be extended to other parts of the country—

Dr. Hampson: The hon. Member is wrong.

Mr. Davies: I have seen no precise proposals from the Conservatives, certainly not when they were last in office, for increasing the number of direct-grant schools. I imagine that the public repercussions of such an exercise would be such as to warn them off. We are facing a historical accident which reflects a geographically limited facility for British parents.
The second proposition was that the powers of the Minister should not extend to the concept of selection in secondary education. In my view the Education Act 1944 did precisely that. It concentrated the powers of the Department of Education upon the basis on which children should be selected for secondary education. This was a subject on which a substantial number of reports had been

prepared. The Act said, in effect, that on the basis of those reports conclusions could be reached, and that the British education pattern should reflect this distilled wisdom.
Over two or more decades we have recognised the limitations of many of the propositions behind the 1944 Act. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham. West (Mr. Price) indicated, there were many reservations about the sharpness of the divisions created in 1944. The country at large has substantially accepted that the arguments for selection are not justified by the educational benefits that it purports to bring.
The problem about the circular which my right hon. Friend has circulated to local authorities is not that it is too strong but that it is not strong enough. It could lead to far too great an area of discretion for the schools. We must be perfectly blunt about the situation. Conservative Members are quite aware of it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West that the logic of the argument and the implications for the independent sector may as well be recognised in the debate.
The case which is really being argued by the Conservatives for the maintenance of the direct-grant schools—if their support for direct-grant schools is successful, in so far as some of those schools decide that they will not be fully integrated into the State system—is that the decisions about the future of the schools will be taken not on educational criteria but on purely economic criteria, and that a number of schools will leave the State system of education. The issue will have been decided not upon the educational merits but purely upon the financial position of individual schools. That case should not be defended by the Conservatives on the basis that it is good for the development of education.
Comprehensive requirements have profound implications for the nature of selection. The form of entry which selects the few inevitably deprives the rest. The direct-grant schools were largely the product of a somewhat haphazard historical accident 30 years ago. If we look at the development of the direct-grant schools over the last 30 years we find that they do not have a record of success but a record of extreme limitation, bordering at times on being worthy of criticism.
First, Conservative Members will no doubt defend the direct-grant schools on the basis of parental choice. Parental choice is inevitably limited in all those areas where direct-grant schools do not exist. That limitation is not only geographical but social. Geographically, it is clear that there is little opportunity for an individual in Wales, for instance, to extend his ability to select for his child the so-called advantages of direct-grant school education because in the whole of Wales there are only four such schools.
Secondly, the Conservatives will no doubt argue that the direct-grant schools offer a broad social mix, and, in particular, that they enable substantial numbers of children of ordinary working-class parents to escape from their locality and enjoy the benefits of socialising and being educated with a wider social mix. But in the direct-grant schools one does not find a social mix which reflects in any way the broad composition of British society. One finds—as the Labour Party has always recognised and argued, and as has been widely recognised throughout the country—that with social selection in the direct-grant schools two and a half times as many pupils are children of the middle class as their group is represented in society as a whole, and there are two and a half times as few working-class children as are represented in the community as a whole.
The schools have been somewhat coy about revealing this. I regret that we are involved today in developing yet another issue which should have been settled 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Those of us involved in the matter before the Donnison Report have great difficulty in obtaining from direct-grant schools the foundation of their argument that they represented a broad social mix. Once the Donnison Report had identified the sociology of the direct-grant schools the facts were clearly revealed.
I imagine that the third argument to be presented by the Conservatives will develop around the issue of standards. I have no doubt that if the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) has the good fortune to catch the eye of the Chair he will wax as eloquent as ever on this subject.
I contend that the standards of education which our children seek to achieve and are able to achieve are much more related to what is expected of them than to their own abilities. The most crucial determinant of educational success has little to do with the standards of teaching or the level of the school. It has a good deal more to do with the social background of the children and the school's expectations of their possible achievements.
Given the framework within which the direct-grant schools have been placed for the last three decades, what one sees is a record not of conspicuous academic success but of mediocre achievement. Thirty-five per cent. of the children who enter direct-grant schools, on the rigorous academic selective criteria that Conservative Members vaunt so much, and on the basis of the social selection which is clearly reflected in their broad social composition, fail to get any A-levels. More than 60 per cent. fail to go on to higher education. The achievements of the schools which purport to be the defenders of academic standards are, despite their most favourable circumstances, considerably limited.
The direct-grant schools also say that their distance from the Department of Education and Science and from local authorities gives them a degree of independence and freedom which we should welcome in British education. That is an argument which is put forward in defence of public schools. It is a dubious argument in that context, and in the context of the direct-grant schools it holds no water. Whereas the independence of the public school sector can at least provide the fig leaf of respectability when we are talking about the Summer-hills of this world, and the possibilities of initiative and innovation in certain areas of education, in the framework of our direct-grant schools we have an all-too-predictable, narrow, conservative, predominantly philistine development of our education system.
I came across an example last night when I took a few minutes off from laboriously preparing my notes, which hon. Members will realise are the product of great research, to watch the "Omnibus" programme on BBC television. There I say David Hockney, whom I do not rate as my favourite


artist, but he has a rare talent, and was educated in a prime direct-grant school. He made it clear that the important thing if one wanted to develop an artistic talent, which is his particular contribution to our society, was to get into the lower forms of the school, where it received priority. Had he remained on the treadmill of academic achievement, which the top ranges of the school, and its whole process, sought, such talent would have been stultified.
That is a condemnation of those who would argue that direct-grant schools provide a broad and important element in our education development. I do not decry the development of academic standards. But if one wants to develop education standards one should be concerned not to concentrate the most qualified teachers, and possibly even the most able, in those most prestigious schools. Rather, our best education talents should perhaps be directed towards ensuring that children in less advantaged schools or from less advantaged social backgrounds, derive encouragement.
Even with their highly prestigious and academically-orientated education, and, with that background, the ability to select staff, the direct-grant schools have not been successful judged by the narrow criteria of academic standards by which they would wish to be judged.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman was in error in saying that two thirds of those at direct-grant schools do not go on to higher education. In fact, 32 per cent. go on to universities and another 32 per cent. go on to higher education of various kinds. That is a unique academic record.

Mr. Davies: I accept that I should have said that one third of the pupils at direct-grant schools do not go on to higher education, and I withdraw the figure I gave. However, the point still holds that we are talking about schools with an extraordinary concentration of talent, because of the selective processes, and certainly about schools whose pupils come from socially advantaged homes. In so far as these schools develop an academic advantage, it is much more a reflection of the students they select at 11 than of the process of reaching educational attainment inside the school.
We should recognise that we need to develop the talents of all our children, and

that we certainly need to end the social divide which this most divisive form of education helps to perpetuate. In the context of our social, economic and political problems, we need better understanding, more co-operations and a greater development of talents. As long as we persist in arbitrarily selecting certain groups of children for a separate form of education, and not even educating those particularly efficiently, we have a basis for the continuation of the divisions in society.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on an important step in the right direction. My worry is that the step is rather more hesitant than it should be.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: Unlike the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Davies), I should like to deal not so much with the "call attention" part of the motion as with its terms:
That this House deplores the substitution of the rule by circular for the rule of law".
I should like to point out to the Opposition that during their term in office the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, now Leader of the Opposition, issued 43 circulars. I should like to know whether the idea behind the motion—moved by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton), who seems to have left the Chamber, probably for very good reasons—is that the hon. Gentleman wanted to make political capital or that he genuinely disapproved of the action of his own party's Secretary of State. He might think about this in days to come.
I see no reason for anyone to deny a democratically elected majority, however small, the right to make decisions. Labour Members, if not the more realistic Members on the Opposition benches, will agree that when it comes to talking about the making of law, the Conservative Opposition during the period in office of the present Government have been a pretty puny Opposition. When it has come to voting, it has been extraordinary how weak has been their strength. Many times when we turned up with virtually our full numbers the Conservatives were 30 or 40 short. It seems to me that circulars are a perfectly realistic way to implement what was, after all, in the Labour Party manifesto.
My point is that there is so much in education which is having harmful effects and which could be debated. My party—perhaps all parties—has always felt that the priorities of education are very simple. They deal first with children; secondly, with teachers; and, thirdly, with buildings in which teachers can impart knowledge to children.
If there is one thing that should have been debated, it is the single growth industry in the Government's present education set-up. I refer to education administrators, who seem to be becoming more and more numerous.
I should not like to be the only man on the Opposition benches who does not shower the Secretary of State for Education and Science with compliments. I notice that he, too, has gone, probably because of a surfeit of flattery.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman is never likely to have to make an exit for that reason.

Mr. Freud: I believe that that was the intervention which the hon. Gentleman promised earlier, or perhaps it was just a halfway entertainment.
There is always something wrong with a nation's education system. If we did not accept that, we should not be realists. My contention is that the thing which is particularly wrong is that there are more and more administrators.
In the last few days the Secretary of State, like a latter-day Beeching with a shining axe, has warned colleges of education that there will be a cut-back in the number of teachers. He said that there will be no need for these teachers. I wish he would remember that for every extra teacher we train, the appalling pupil-teacher ratio is made marginally better. If there is to be a cut, let it be in the number of administrators. The natural redundancy and wastage of administrators should be allowed to run their course without bringing in new and bright young educational administrators at the other end of the sausage machine.
There has been a fair amount of talk about direct-grant schools and grammar schools. We have noted that other political parties in the House at various times have deplored selection at 11-plus. The

Hon. Member for Streatham in moving the motion—he has still not returned, but if I stay on my feet long enough I may be honoured again by his presence—

Dr. Hampson: My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) was called upstairs to peruse his speech in readiness for the hon. Member to read tomorrow.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful for that information. If he changes it significantly we shall probably all agree with it.
The hon. Member for Streatham said that no time was too early for selection. He was in favour of selection at the age of five if necessary, so that a partially sighted child, a child with impaired hearing or a physically handicapped child can be taken out of the school by selection. Has he not heard of remedial teachers? A child of that age does not have to be abandoned to a remedial school. The longer he can stay with normal children, albeit receiving extra tuition and help, the better will be the chances of that child in the long run.
I have said before that our education system is not ideal. Of course it is not ideal, but it is the system which the Conservative Opposition wish to prolong. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John Stevas) said that the direct-grant school system should be enlarged. He has every right to make a promise that it will be, and if the Conservative Opposition come to power he has every right to implement that promise, whether by decree or by law.
But what is so special about the 12 per cent. who are able to go to a grammar school? Is it not unfair to the 3 per cent. who come after the 12 per cent. or the 10 per cent. after that? Is it worth giving 12 per cent. of the children a better education, thereby depriving 88 per cent. of the chance of contact and social intercourse with those who are lucky enough to be endowed with better brains? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. In a country which has our present financial limitations, I see no reason for abandoning 88 per cent. of the children for the sake of the 12 per cent. That is perhaps the most important consideration. We have always deplored the limitation of opportunity, and that is what selection does.
In my constituency there seems to be the worst of all possible alternatives. In March, Whittlesey and Chatteris there is no I 1-plus selection, but there is creaming off at 13. That means that all children have co-educational primary education until the age of 11. They then go to a secondary school which, for example, in Wisbech, means either a boys' school or a girls' school. At the age of 13 the best 15 per cent. are creamed off to go to another type of school, and in Wisbech that is the only way to coeducation. This does great harm, not to the children who are creamed off but to the ones who stay behind, who set themselves from their earliest years against certain children with whom they can compare their ability. The damage that this does to the community and to the football and cricket teams is enormous. The House should realise that to condemn a child to being a failure at any age is always wrong. No child is a failure. It is we adults who have failed an awful lot of children.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Each time the Labour Government bring forward legislation to carry out manifesto promises I am surprised when Opposition Members make the sort of speeches that we have heard this afternoon. No one would deny that we made clear in the manifesto that we should bring to an end the grants given to direct-grant schools and that we believed in comprehensive secondary education.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in an earlier debate, it would be anomalous, and, indeed, I believe ludicrous, for a party that believes in comprehensive secondary education to continue the direct-grant system. My hon. Friends have shown that the direct-grant and grammar school systems depend not so much on selection but on rejection based on many fortuitous factors. I once lived in a little village called Woodstock not far from Oxford. For a child who lived in Oxford the chance of getting to a grammar school was 10 or 20 times greater than it was for a child living in a small village in the county.
Several hon. Members have said that direct-grant schools have a wider social mix than have comprehensive schools, that free places give the children of poorer parents a chance to go to direct-grant

schools and that the free place system benefits working-class children. My hon Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks) did some research in Bristol covering the years 1968 to 1972, and the statistics produced from that research bear out a comment that has been made. From 1968 to 1972 433 non-Catholic free places were awarded. Of those places 119 went to children in independent and non-maintained schools, schools where parents, who have the money to do so, pay for their children to be educated. Roughly 30 per cent. went to those schools. That left 314 free places to be awarded to the children from primary schools.
As there are 91 non-Catholic primary schools in Bristol, it could be assumed that they would get roughly three places per school. That could be assumed if, as has been suggested, there is the wider social mix and the wonderful opportunities for working-class children to get to direct-grant schools. In fact, 161 out of the 314 places that is approximately one half—went to only seven schools in Bristol --namely, Colstons, Elmlea, Henleaze, Stoke Bishop, Westbury-on-Trym. Westbury Park and Waycroft. The other 84 schools shared the remaining 153 places.
I have a map which shows the concentration of the numbers going from certain areas in the city to the direct-grant schools in Bristol. It is clear that the majority come from the wealthy areas. They come from the areas where the prices of houses are well beyond what can be afforded by ordinary working-class families. Indeed, there are great stretches of areas right across the map where there were no free places allocated to the schools concerned. They are the working-class areas of Bristol both in my own constituency and in the constituencies of other hon. Members who represent Bristol.

Dr. Hampson: Are not the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues forgetting one important point—namely, if this policy goes through these schools, either as private schools or as neighbourhood schools, will be even more socially selective than they are now? 'They may not be widespread now in terms of social intake, but the intake would be much narrower if this policy were pursued.

Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend, in setting out the Labour Party's policy,


made it clear that the direct-grant schools will have a choice of either continuing in their selective and rejective kind of way, which I have mentioned, or of joining the State system. I hope that many of them will consider putting their resources into the State system, but I do not believe that anyone in the Labour Party can support a situation in which a considerable amount of public money is given to a small number of children. I am now speaking about Bristol. The children that receive the money come from certain backgrounds, and, clearly, these schools are not creating a wider social mix to meet one of the main arguments presented in their favour.
A good deal has been said about xper cent. getting O-levels and A-levels. I was rejected by the education system in my teens and fortuitously found myself at the centre of the establishment in terms of education—namely, Oxford University. Of course, examples of this kind are often used as instances of someone succeeding. It is said "They can succeed if they have the ability." The notion is used that, irrespective of background, youngsters can get to a university.
I think of the many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who were equally rejected by the system. If they had been given the same "fortuitous" opportunity they, too, would have arrived there just as I did. Having spent many years in education I have grave doubts about our so-called standards. Statistics are produced about O-levels and A-levels. I think that a lot of O-levels and A-levels are simply memory tests that do not tell us anything about the abilities of the persons concerned. They tell us nothing about their intellects. At some stage I would welcome a much wider debate on our examination techniques in view of the great emphasis that seems to be placed on whether someone has one O-level or three A-levels.
I entirely agree with the point made about the standards of comprehensive schools. In Britain today, and certainly in Bristol, there are many schools that were built before the end of the last century. We need to devote far more of our economic resources to education and to comprehensive education. It is my judgment that whilst decision makers in our society can afford to send their children

to schools outside the State system we shall not get the kind of State system that we really need.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: We are indebted once again for this debate on education to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton).

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Where is he?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No doubt preparing for the next time he wins the Ballot. My hon. Friend has a remarkable power for winning Ballots and lotteries. It is a prodigious gift. He was successful in the Ballot for Private Members, and as a result we were able to discuss the parents' charter until it was talked out by Labour Members. Today we have had the opportunity to discuss not only Government education policy but, even more important, its relationship to the rule of law.
My hon. Friend opened his remarks by adumbrating the succession to the Department of Education and Science. He gave us a quotation that came to us from Yeats via the unlikely source of the leader column of the Daily Telegraph. It referred to some rough beast lurching or slouching towards the Department to replace the Secretary of State. At first I took that as some kind of cryptic tribute to myself, but then it became clear that it was a reference to the present tenure of office of the Secretary of State and a successor who has been adumbrated in the popular Press.
I hope that is not the case. We should regret to see that kind of change at the Department. We are anxious not because of the retention of the present occupant but because of a possible successor in the shape of the Secretary of State for Industry, who, like Banquo's ghost, has come in and out of our discussions. What we fear is that we shall have not only Macbeth but Lady Macbeth as well. That would be a considerable combination with which to deal.
It is a sad reflection on the present state of our political commentary that the Department of Education and Science should be considered a suitable refuse dump for the disposal of inconvenient Ministers. Education is a subject of paramount importance, and the effect of education policies will be felt long after our


economic debates, which now preoccupy us, have been relegated to the more unreadable portions of Hansard. That, indeed, is saying something.
My hon. Friend's motion reaches the heart of the matter when it deplores the substitution of the rule of law by the rule of circular. The educational argument was very fully dealt with by my hon. Friend in proposing the motion, and I do not intend to go into that.
I shall concentrate my intervention on the extremely important constitutional point which characterises all Government policy, but education policy under the present Secretary of State in particular. It cannot be said often enough that Circular 4/74, which seeks to impose a system of comprehensive schools without regard for educational considerations or local conditions or parental wishes, has no force of law whatsoever. It is an expression of the wish of the Secretary of State. It is no more and it is no less than that. However, that would never be guessed from the language and tone of the circular.
The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) censured the previous Government for the number of circulars they issued. The essence of the point is not the number of circulars that are issued but the tone and language of the circulars, their content and what they ask.
It could never be guessed from the language and tone of this circular that it was not backed by the full force of the law. The circular does not request information. It requires information. It gives no indication that local education authorities and the managers of voluntary schools are perfectly entitled to withhold that information should they so wish.
This is the root objection to the circular. It seeks to override the rights of local authorities and voluntary aided schools. It is flawed in its very basis of principle, because it ignores the basis of our education system, which is that there is not one power in the education system but there are two. It is not, in the strict meaning of the word, a monarchy. It is a diarchy. The Secretary of State is not in the rôle of some kind of crowned despot who can impose his will on the whole system as it occurs to him. He

must work by persuasion to achieve a harmonious co-operation between the two. It is persuasion which he must use and not dictatorship.

Mr. Christopher Price: Has the hon. Gentleman read Section 1 of the Education Act 1944, which requires the Secretary of State to control and direct a national policy through local education authorities? It uses the words
under his control and direction".

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If I had not read Section 1 of the Education Act I would be unfitted even for a Shadow appointment. So I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. I have read not only Section 1 but all the other sections of the Act. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in taking one section of the Education Act and isolating it from the rest of the Act. The Act has to be read as a whole.
It is true that Section 1 states that the responsibility of the Secretary of State is to achieve a national policy in education, but that general duty is subject to all the other sections of the Act which lay down the position of the other constituents of the education service.
To reassure the hon. Gentleman of my reading, I remind him of Section 8 of the Act, which I am sure he has read so I need not ask him on that point, which lays it down as a primary duty of the local education authorities to see that there are a sufficient number of schools available. I remind him, too, of Section 36 of the Act, which provides that parents are under a duty to see that children of compulsory school age are educated in accordance with their age, their abilities, and their aptitude. I remind the hon. Gentleman further of Section 76 of the Act, which lays it down as a general principle that children
are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents as far as that is compatible with efficiency and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure".
So I am indeed grateful to the hon. Member for his help in enabling me to show that I have read not only Section I of the Education Act but the other sections of the Act as well.
Nothing is clearer from that recital than that the duties rest with the parents first and the organisation with the local education authority, and that both are


Previous in importance and in dignity and in the manner in which they are treated by the Act to the Secretary of State. It is very important to get that basis of principle clear.
I hope that, with the aid of the hon. Gentleman, I have established that the law guarantees the autonomy and the rights of local educational authorities. So the basis of resistance of those local education authorities which are now resisting the requests of the Secretary of State is quite different from the basis of the Clay Cross councillors. The Clay Cross councillors were acting against the law, whereas the councillors of Kingston-upon-Thames, Buckinghamshire and elsewhere are basing themselves upon their rights as guaranteed by statute passed by the House.
Next, the Secretary of State, having in this circular advanced the facsimile of a legal case, shows that he recognises the weakness of his own position when he falls back on threats that if the local education authorities fail to comply with these instructions they will be deprived of their building programme. Different forms of words have been used. The circular contains this wording: "No projects"—that is, at non-comprehensive schools—
will be authorised. The only projects to be authorised will be those which are necessary to enable the school to become comprehensive.
On 12th January of this year at the Labour Local Government Conference in Manchester the Under-Secretary of State said this:
No new building will be authorised which would be incompatible with the development of genuine comprehensive education".
Those are two quite different concepts. It is very important that local education authorities which have been threatened in this manner should know exactly what it is that they are threatened with. Is Government policy represented by the language of the circular saying that it is only projects which are necessary for the development of comprehensive education which will be allowed, or is the gloss put upon it by the Under-Secretary of "compatible" now to be Government policy? I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us his guidance on that matter.
Secondly on the question of the building programme, it is wrong in principle to use a technical device of the building programme, which was designed to ensure good economic management, to coerce local authorities. That is a misuse of a power. It was a device which was used and developed for something quite different. Now it is being turned to a wholly political use by the present Secretary of State, and that should cease.
There are also clear limits to this threat which are imposed by the law itself. As my hon. Friend said in moving the motion, it cannot operate against the duties which are laid down under Section 8 to see that sufficient schools are available. What the Secretary of State is attempting to do is to call in aid a political policy to cancel out a legal duty. I do not believe that the courts, were they asked to pass judgment upon this manoeuvre, would allow the Secretary of State to succeed.
There is also the point that it is the duty of the local education authority to ensure that the premises of every school maintained by the authority conform to the standards prescribed by the Secretary of State for schools of the description to which the school belongs. Those standards, the Secretary of State knows, are prescribed by the Standards for School Premises Regulations 1959. Statutory Instrument 1959 No. 890.
The cumulative effect of these provisions—the sections I have quoted and the statutory instrument—is that if any financial sanctions were sought to be applied by the Secretary of State to prevent the adequate maintenance of existing school buildings or their necessary repair or alteration, I think there is a very good chance that the courts would overrule the Secretary of State in the exercise of that power.
It is extremely important that local authorities should be aware of their rights under the Eduction Acts. Of course, I agree that it is different where a new school or a significant enlargement of a school is to be considered, but the vast majority of local education authorities at this point are not thinking in those terms. They are thinking in terms of alterations to their schools and in terms of improvements to bring their schools up to certain required standards. They are perfectly


safe in proceeding along those lines, and the Secretary of State does not have the power to deprive them of the aid which they need under the building programme.
There is a third major point. Quite apart from the legal limitations which are placed on the action of the Secretary of State and his Department, there is the practical limitation that there is no secondary school improvement programme in existence. If the Secretary of State casts his mind back to the building programme which he authorised for 1975–76 of £140 million, he will know that the major part of that sum of money has to be devoted to basic needs. There is a pittance of about £ 4 million for improvement projects which are to apply not only to primary and secondary schools but also to colleges of further education, and so on. Therefore, the amount of money involved here is indeed tiny.
What the Secretary of State will achieve by this policy is simply this. He will bring the whole idea of the comprehensive school into disrepute. If local authorities allow themselves to be coerced into putting forward proposals for which no money at all is being provided, all they will get is a series of botched-up schemes, schools with split sites, schemes which are comprehensive in name but in nothing else. That will be the practical outcome of the Secretary of State's policy.
After all, we have seen the most extraordinary changes in the approach to comprehensive education. We used to be told that it was essential to have large schools with 2,000 pupils or so, in order to be genuinely comprehensive. Now we are told by the ILEA that a three-form entry school is sufficient to enable it to go comprehensive. We have Dr. Elizabeth Halsall, who has worked all her life for comprehensive education, changing her ground and saying that we do not need schools with between 1,500 and 2,000 pupils but that it is possible to have a school with 600 pupils. When educational opinion is changing so rapidly, I think it is wise to go slowly and not impose this pattern on schools everywhere as though the merits had been proven beyond all discussion.

Mr. Michael Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has got his history wrong. It has never been the view of

those who believe in comprehensive schools that a comprehensive school must be very large. The old London County Council was obliged to make them large because the then Conservative Government would not let the LCC do it at all unless it did it that way. This was based on a wrong idea about the size of the sixth form. The idea that informed educational opinion at any time took the view that a comprehensive school must be large is belied by all the facts.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sorry to differ from the right hon. Gentleman, who speaks with authority as a former Minister of Education. No doubt—I do not challenge it for a moment—he has given us the views which he has always held, but he is flattering educationists in general by attributing his own perspicacity to them.
I remember when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when Secretary of State for Education and Science, challenged this concept of the large comprehensive school the wave of denigration and abuse which broke around her head from many educationists who said that this was a campaign against the comprehensive school as such. Whatever the ultimate outcome of this exchange, it serves its purpose in that it shows that there is a degree of uncertainty in this sphere which is a very unsafe base on which the Secretary of State seeks to construct this edifice of dogmatism.
What I have said about the local authorities and this is the fourth point I wish to make—applies with even greater force to the position of the voluntary aided schools, which are the third element in this partnership which has made up our education system. In Circular 4/74 we have this extraordinary passage:
In the case of voluntary aided schools the governors cannot expect to continue to receive the substantial financial aid which their schools enjoy through being maintained by the local education authority, if they are not prepared to co-operate with that authority in settling the general educational character of the school and its place in a local compre hensive system.
I ask the Under-Secretary to say under what authority such a statement is issued by the Department of Education. It ignores entirely the rights of the religious settlement of the schools built into the


Education Act 1944. The Education Act 1944 gives the right to voluntary aided schools to be maintained. The salaries of the teachers are to be paid by the local education authority. The internal repairs are to be done by it. That is a statutory right. There is no question of their dependence on a system of reorganisation or co-operating with the Secretary of State in his wishes.
Under Section 102 of the Education Act 85 per cent. of the external repairs are to be paid for from moneys supplied by the Secretary of State. He is under a statutory duty to supply that money to voluntary aided schools, however they may organise themselves internally. The right to propose schemes of reorganisation rests not with the Secretary of State nor with the local education authority. It rests with the governors of the voluntary aided school itself, and two thirds of those are appointed from the foundation or the religious body that is supporting them.
There is the further point that if the Secretary of State wishes to confirm a cease-to-maintain order for one of these voluntary aided schools, applied for by a local education authority, it is necessary for him to be satisfied that alternative places are available for the children displaced from that school. He admitted that himself.

Mr. Armstrong: I am not arguing about that.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman says that he is not arguing about it. But the whole circular is a repudiation of what I have been saying. It is a repudiation of legal rights which are enshrined in statute.

Mr. Armstrong: indicated dissent.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Then what is it? If it is not a statement of the law, it is a piece of bluff and bluster, and it should be exposed for what it is. I think that I have disposed of that argument satisfactorily, and I can pass on to two further matters. [Interruption.] These are important matters. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has descended from some place—or ascended, who knows?—but he was not here when our deliberations began. Nevertheless, death-bed conversion

is better than nothing, and I trust that, having missed the beginning of the debate, the hon. Gentleman will remain till the end.
My fifth point is that the same ignoring of the law and cavalier disregard for Parliament is reflected in the nine-page letter demanding statements of intention from direct-grant school governors. This letter has been sent out by the Department of Education in furtherance of a policy approved by the Secretary of State but never submitted to this House in the form of regulations. There is no basis in law for the governors of these schools to be required to make any reply to the Department of Education until those regulations have been laid before Parliament and the House has had an opportunity to confirm or reject them.
Under Section 100 of the 1944 Act, a section which envisages the continuance of the direct-grant schools, it is at least possible—my hon. Friend touched on this point—that those regulations would be ultra vires the Act and would be so held by the courts. Therefore, the Secretary of State is on dangerous ground in issuing that letter demanding statements from the governors of these schools without the slightest authority from the House.
Now, my sixth and last point. Bad communications corrupt good manners, and I hope that local education authorities which are opposed to selective schools will not follow the bad example of the Secretary of State and his deputy in this respect, because they will ignore the law at their peril, and local authorities are as much bound by the law as is the Secretary of State. For example, whether they are opposed to selection or not, they are obliged by law to provide a genuine selection procedure, and if they do not wish to do that if they wish to get rid of their grammar schools by that sort of method—they must apply under a Section 13 notice procedure which has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State.
Local authorities have no right to rig zoning arrangements so as to suffocate a school. That would be a policy contrary to the law. Nor have they the right to discriminate in the matter of capitation grants for sixth forms or in other respects against schools of which they disapprove.
Freedom and the rule of law are our most precious possessions. It is a tragic


irony that the Secretary of State, who in other spheres has done much to assert and defend those values, should in the only sphere for which he has direct responsibility have challenged them. In that one sphere he is following the same destructive course as he condemns in others. If he wishes to change the law, let him come to Parliament and seek legislative support. The last Labour Government in 1970 took that course. They lost the Bill not because of the election but because of the defection of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). The Bill was lost in Committee because of the defection of Government supporters. That was when the Government had a majority of 100. Now, with their majority even less, if it exists at all now, the chance of getting such a Bill through the House is lower than it was then.
The Secretary of State, however distinguished he may be, has no right to take the name of the House in vain and to use the prestige and law-making powers of the House to pursue a policy based on nothing better than his own personal predilections and his party's manifesto. We ought all to be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham because, as a result of this debate, it will be far more difficult to follow that course in future than it has been in the immediate past.

5.55 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The motion moved by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) dealt with three issues, and I shall reply to them as briefly as I can. First, we were accused as a Government, of wanting to alter the fundamental status and nature of grammar and direct-grant schools. We plead guilty to that charge.
Second, it was said that we were doing it without legislative sanction. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has just repeated the general assertions which he has been making throughout the country about the Secretary of State's actions. The hon. Gentleman has made those assertions so frequently that his passion on the subject this afternoon led me to think that he actually believes them. In fact, my right hon. Friend has acted within the law throughout, as I shall prove.
Third, it is said that my right hon. Friend is showing a reckless disregard for the harmful effects of his policy on educational standards, and that, too, I shall answer.
The debate has shown the divergence of philosophy and approach of the two sides of the House to what we mean by education and what we expect the education service to achieve. I put it bluntly: we believe that there are positive advantages when all pupils—pupils of all attainments and social groupings—are educated together. This is taken for granted in our primary schools. It was recommended in a consultative document prepared by an independent committee as long ago as 1931, and we think that what is good practice in primary schools ought by now to be in operation in our secondary schools.
That belief and philosophy is the basis for our clearly stated policy, now being implemented, to abolish selection at the secondary stage and to introduce genuine comprehensive reorganisation in secondary education throughout the country. We have had the support of local education authorities of all political persuasions. We have the overwhelming support of all teacher organisations, and there is no doubt that education opinion supports the national policy outlined by my right hon. Friend.
It is time the Opposition were honest with the House and the country and stated clearly where they stood on the question of secondary education. When they give us their real view, we can have an honest debate. These are matters on which none of us can be dogmatic. We ought to be debating them, and we ought to be questioning what is happening in our education service.
At every election—indeed, from almost every platform—the Tories tell us that they are against 11-plus selection, but then they start a campaign to retain grammar schools throughout the country. They cannot have both. Tory local education authorities throughout the country are implementing comprehensive reorganisation while their parliamentary colleagues and representatives fight on the Floor of the House and on political platforms to retain selection and elitism. I repeat that Conservative Members cannot have both, and therefore they must


be honest and make their choice. Comprehensive education and selective education are not parallel systems; they are alternatives. Any responsible politician must come clean with the electorate and say which is preferable.
The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) put the matter clearly in his "Black Paper No. 2"—I agree with him when he said:
One cannot have grammar schools alongside comprehensive schools or the latter will be nothing but misnamed secondary modern schools.
Yet we are told that they can coexist.

Dr. Rhodes Boyson: I still hold the view that it is impossible to have such schools in the same area. However, that does not mean that comprehensive and selective schools cannot exist side by side in different areas. Does not the Minister agree that life has moved on since "Black Paper No. 2" to "Black Paper No. 4", in that leading Socialist, Iris Murdock, has great doubts about the matter? If the Socialists want to lose other Socialists, good luck to them.

Mr. Armstrong: Indeed, we have moved on, and the "Black Papers" have got worse and more reactionary. At any rate the hon. Gentleman must sort out his own conscience and philosophy, and I think that he has made my point for me.
We believe that what is contained in the motion before the House would mean, in practical terms, the reallocation of scarce resources to a narrow, privileged sector. That is the only meaning of the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Streatham. They could be implemented only at the expense of other parts of the service such as educational priority areas schools, neighbourhood comprehensives, and so on. It would mean reduced opportunities for pupils who so often hit the headlines because of hostility to school as they see it and experience it today.
I come to the rule of law, which is an important issue. Under Section 1 of the 1944 Act the Secretary of State has a duty to secure
the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing varied and comprehensive educational service in every area.

Circular 4/74 spelt out that policy in no uncertain terms. We have advocated that policy over a number of years and it was reiterated in our manifestos in February and October of last year. It is a national policy, which has been overwhelmingly supported and received the endorsement of the House on two occasions last year.
Despite the efforts of the hon. Member for Chelmsford throughout the country in advising local authorities to resist—he has every right to do so, and has made clear that the circular does not carry the weight of law, and we have never said it did—only seven authorities out of 97 have resisted our invitation to comply with national policy.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Minister also tell the House how many local education authorities have sent in conditional schemes—conditional, for example, on finance being made available or on a certain number of years having elapsed? Does he agree that if we are to have a fair assessment of the situation, we need information about those who are resisting indirectly as well as directly?

Mr. Armstrong: We in the Department accept what the authorities are saying, and I am trying to give a true account to the House. I repeat that seven authorities have already said that they want to retain selection. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are other authorities which have said that they do not wish to go fully comprehensive until more resources are available, but many of them are anxious to go ahead with comprehensive reorganisation.
We are discussing the situation with those seven authorities and are asking them to reconsider their policy. We hope that they will consult the Department and co-operate in a national policy which has the overwhelming support of the country. We have proceeded by consultation and persuasion, but we are determined to carry through this policy of educational advance in every area. We are preparing the necessary legislation and we shall certainly introduce it in the next Session of Parliament if any authority still insists on retaining selection, thus frustrating nationally agreed policy. I hope that that has cleared the matter in the minds of the Opposition.
I come to the assertions made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford about the bullying tactics and arm twisting in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is supposed to have indulged. We stated our policy in unequivocal terms. In the circular to which the hon. Gentleman referred we advised full local consultation with all interested bodies. We offered the good offices of the Inspectorate, with all its experience of good practice in the country, and, furthermore, we quite properly reminded authorities and governors of voluntary aided schools of their responsibilities before implementing the nationally agreed policy. We reminded them that building projects which were incompatible with progress towards genuine comprehensive reorganisation would not be approved. We spelt that out clearly to all interested bodies.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford asked me to deal with the rights and powers of voluntary schools, and then went on to answer his own query. He knows what the law is and he also knows about the rights of voluntary schools. He knows all about the agreement relating to 85 per cent. and all the rest of it. But he also knows that under Section 13 of the Act local education authorities can propose to cease to maintain any maintained school, whether county or voluntary. When such a proposal is approved by the Secretary of State, the local education authority's duty to maintain the school is at an end. No Secretary of State would approve a proposal—nor would any local education authority make a proposal—to close a school unless the educational interests of the children were properly safeguarded. Therefore, the assertions made by the hon. Gentleman and the heat which he engendered should not have been imported into our discussions. He knows full well that we are carrying out the law.
On the question of school building programmes, a great deal was made by the hon. Member for Streatham—who referred to a letter involving his hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—of administrative instruments without legal significance. They are also instruments of education policy and have been used as such by successive Secretaries of State, including my right hon. Friend's predecessor.
Let me give an example. Authorities have now been given an allocation for nursery education. Quite properly, they have made representations to my right hon. Friend for the amounts in respect of nursery education to be transferred to secondary reorganisation to enable resources to go into that work. Some have made a strong case. My right hon. Friend has resisted it because we regard pre-school education as one of the highest priorities in the educational service. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that my right hon. Friend is acting illegally? It does not appear so. This is in accord with our education policy. It involves the use of a complete allocation to implement that policy. It was done when the hon. Gentleman was in the Department and it will be done by successive Secretaries of State. There is nothing new in this. My right hon. Friend is acting in accordance with the power given him in Section 1 of the 1944 Act to guide, direct and persuade LEAs to accord with national policy.
Hon. Members have spoken about the use of Section 100 with regard to direct-grant schools.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Before he leaves the subject of the building programmes, will the Minister elucidate the distinction between the wording in the circular, that only projects which were "necessary" to enable schools to become comprehensive would be approved, and his own wording, that only those projects which were "compatible" would be approved? If it is a question of compatibility, the restrictions that he is endeavouring to impose on LEAs are much less stringent than those imposed in the wording of the circular.

Mr. Armstrong: May I deal with that in this way? No local education authority has inquired of the Department about the meaning of the circular or of my statement at the Manchester conference. We have made it clear, not only in the circular but in speeches and in replies to Parliamentary Questions, that when an authority submits a Section 13 proposal or any proposal for a building project which would perpetuate selection and impede progress towards comprehensive reorganisation, building resources will not be allocated.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a third form of words.

Mr. Armstrong: No, this is all the same thing. This is clear in the minds of authorities.
I am told that Section 100, like some other provisions in the 1944 Act, is cast in the form of imposing a duty, but in fact it does no more than confer a power on the Secretary of State. I was impressed by the hon. Member for Chelmsford's knowledge of the Education Act, but that Act often seems to me a bit like Holy Writ—one can quote all kinds of things from it to prove what one wants to prove.
Even if Section 100 were mandatory it would not matter in the present context, because the duty would not be restricted to grants to grammar schools. When such grants stop, grant will be still be payable under the same provision of Section 100 to many other bodies, like the Yehudi Menuhin School and the Royal Ballet School, and the voluntary colleges of education, or further education, under the ordinary direct-grant schools regulations, which are not in issue and which will remain in force, and to the direct-grant nursery schools and one or two other institutions.
I come now to the allegations about legislative sanction. There is no question of the Government's attempting to put into effect their proposals about the direct-grant schools without such sanction. No primary legislation will be needed to accomplish the aim set out in the Secretary of State's statement of 11th March. The relevant statutory regulations will have to be changed, however. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend and of the Secretary of State for Wales to make appropriate regulations for this purpose under Section 100 of the Education Act 1944 and to lay them before Parliament as prescribed in Section 112. They will be subject to a negative resolution of either House.
Meanwhile, out of consideration for the interests of all concerned—pupils, parents, staff, governors and local education authorities—and at the express request of representatives of the schools, we have made available an advance indication of the gist of the proposed regulations so that schools may have as long as possible to consider their position and their intentions.

Nowhere in the letters that we have sent out is there any command, demand or threat. We have simply set out the general intention, which we shall seek to accomplish in due course in the proper way by regulations laid before Parliament.
The hon. Member for Streatham properly raised the question of the rights of the staff, of the fees, and of the cost to the education service. The cost to the service depends on the number that go independent and on hundreds of decisions by parents and governors, and so on. All the evidence is that the cost either way will be marginal. As for staff and fees, perhaps the hon. Member would like to write to the Department. These are matters for negotiation which we have very much in mind. I certainly take on board the points that he has made.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The Minister says that he intends to lay an order before the House. In the meantime, he has a draft order in circulation. Since the order will not be amendable once it is laid, will he ensure that Members of Parliament can see it, by putting a copy in the Library? We could then suggest to the Minister any amendments that we thought appropriate. It does not seem reasonable that we should not have a copy when outside bodies know what it contains.

Mr. Armstrong: It is not a draft order. The hon. Member for Chelmsford will tell the hon. Gentleman what we have written to the direct-grant schools. It was in response to a specific request from the representative bodies that we give them as much information as possible as soon as possible, so that they could make a considered response. It is not a draft order, but an indication of my right hon. Friend's policy.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Surely my hon. Friend is right. What he is saying to the Minister is that the House of Commons should be the first body to be informed of this policy, and not the last. Surely the correct constitutional procedure, if the hon. Gentleman wishes these schools to have notice of Government intentions, is to lay those regulations before the House as early as possible. They should have been laid before this letter went out. Are not the hon.


Gentleman and the Secretary of State presuming that the decision of the House will be in favour of those regulations, whereas it may well be against them?

Mr. Armstrong: We have done nothing out of line with our powers under Section 100. We thought that we were helping those whom the hon. Gentleman has purported to represent today. The last time that he was at the Opposition Dispatch Box he was complaining because we were not telling the schools enough. Now, he is complaining because we have told them. However, I shall see that a copy of the letter is put in the Library, so that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) can inform himself. Perhaps he will inform his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford as well.
In particular, we have outlined new conditions of grant that it is proposed to introduce in respect of pupils admitted after the next educational year and we have indicated the steps which, when taken by the schools, my right hon. Friend will be prepared to regard as satisfying the new conditions. The regulations will be drafted as soon as possible. This must be done with proper care to reflect my right hon. Friend's intentions accurately. But it was not thought necessary or desirable to dot all the legal "i's" and cross all the "t's" before giving those concerned a firm basis on which to proceed with their discussions.
Let me emphasise, as was explained in the Department's letters, that under the proposed regulations it will not be strictly necessary for the schools to make their decisions until the end of this year. In their own interests, and for the sake of pupils, parents and staff, many schools will probably want to make their decisions before then. My right hon. Friend hopes that they will be able to do so before the end of this term. Some have already done so. Others may not be able to move on so swiftly, but there is no need to wait until the regulations are made. They have been told my right hon. Friend's intentions, so they have a basis on which to move towards a decision as soon as they feel able to do so.
This is not rule by circular but an act of consideration made at the request of the schools themselves. In the case of

those direct-grant schools which seek to enter the maintained system—I am sure that there will be many—the crucial step will be a submission to my right hon. Friend of proposals to this effect under Section 13. A proposal may be made by the school, if the intention is that it should become a voluntary school, or by the LEA, if it is to become a county school. The final decision will be taken by my right hon. Friend in the normal way in accordance with the law and after careful consideration of the available evidence.
I now want to deal with the charge that my right hon. Friend is supposed to have a reckless disregard of standards. I reject that assertion out of hand. We are all concerned about standards—academic standards, the behaviour of children, relationships with others, tolerance, care, a proper sense of responsibility and how to live together in a modern society. If we judge by educational standards—I shall not give statistics and percentages—it is apparent from A-level and 0-level results that more and more children are succeeding. There is no doubt that a greater proportion are leaving school with more qualifications.
Of course, the demands of modern society are increasingly exact. We know that great progress is being made, but that does not mean that we are complacent. When we talk about standards, which children are we most concerned about? Most of us are concerned about the numeracy and the literacy of those who, in a sense, have been born to fail. These are the children written off far too early, rejected by the 11-plus procedure, rejected often earlier by rigid streaming in the schools, rejected by a system that sets out deliberately to separate, segregate and divide and rejected by a philosophy—about which we have heard a great deal this afternoon—that confers privilege on the gifted, rewards the strong and punishes the weak.
Because we want to raise the standards of all our children, we are determined to give those who hitherto have been excluded freedom of access to the educational resources available. They are the children about whom we are concerned. There is no evidence at all that the creaming off of high-fliers into exclusive schools helps even the high-fliers. There is


abundant evidence that labelling children as unsuitable and inadequate, and then separating them into schools for the less academically inclined, is a sure recipe for resentment, boredom and under-achievement. When we expect a given response from children and offer them a restricted education at a school for rejects, we should not be surprised or bitter when they respond accordingly.
Far too many of our so-called comprehensive schools are, because of their coexistence with selective grammar schools, misnamed secondary modern schools, as the hon. Member for Brent, North has called them. Those schools are carrying far more than their share of social problems. No wonder that teachers' morale in those schools is difficult to sustain. Where there is coexistence, very often the so-called comprehensive schools have to take the problem children. That is why there are so many difficulties.
Because we want to give all our children access to real meaningful education, we are determined to press ahead with reorganisation which will achieve a service enabling children of all classes in the nation to attend the same schools. Therefore we reject out of hand the motion today.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Roger Sims: I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton), both on his success in the Ballot and in his choice of subject. He has chosen a particularly important subject because we are debating nothing less than a fundamental human right—the right of parents to choose the type of education their child shall receive. It is a right enshrined in the universal Declaration of Human Rights and a right enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights.
We are talking about parents' very strong feelings on these matters, and all of us, as Members of Parliament, know from our postbags just how strongly parents feel about this subject. Conservative Members are concerned with parents' wishes. However, we are not alone in that. The Minister professes to take into account their wishes. Indeed, in Circular No. 4/74, of which we have

heard so much this afternoon, he specifically says:
Authorities will no doubt continue to have due regard to parents' wishes in respect of their children's education ‖
What is the point of parents expressing their wishes if they have no choice? The Minister wants all schools to be comprehensive. His idea of parental choice is rather like the choice offered to the purchasers of the early Ford car—"Any colour you like as long as it is black."
Although there is competition to get into some of the local authority schools there is certainly competition to enter virtually all the grammar and direct-grant schools both for the so-called free places and for the fee-paying places. Why is there such competition? In some cases it is that parents went to the schools themselves. In some cases it is simply that there is some sort of status attaching to the school. In some cases, perhaps, the parents like to demonstrate that they are in a position to pay the fees.
However, many parents of modest means go to a great deal of trouble to get their children into these schools. We all know examples of—perhaps both—parents working long hours in order to pay the fees. Why? It is because they consider that the standards of these direct-grant schools are higher than the standards appertaining in other schools—not simply the academic standards but the standards of discipline and behaviour and the standards in the various peripheral activities that take place in the schools.
There comes to mind one of those calendar mottoes which read:
Education is what is left when you have forgotten everything you have ever learned.
An over-simplification, perhaps; but there is a grain of truth in the implication that education is a training of the whole man or woman and not simply filling the mind with information.
It is this type of broad training for life that the direct-grant schools offer. If the State schools offered the same standards many more parents would opt for them, and then the direct-grant schools would, to use a phrase used elsewhere, "wither on the vine". But this is not the case.
The logical approach would be to raise the standards of the local authority schools. The Labour Party approach to this is to say that the answer is to have complete comprehensive education. Of course, there is a case for comprehensive schools. Some parents want their children to go to comprehensive schools. However, it is one thing to offer comprehensive education as one of the types of education available, thus broadening parental choice, but it is quite another to impose it throughout the country and destroy old-established institutions with fine reputations.
I know that Labour Members will protest that they have no intention of destroying direct-grant and grammar schools. However, if we radically alter the syllabus, the pupils and the style of school, we have created a new institution in an old building, and in the process have destroyed the old institution. If the new could match the old there would be something to be said for this policy. However, it is not so.
The demand for places in direct-grant schools continues to increase. My own borough has been implementing its policy of wholesale comprehensive education in the past few years. In the last two years the demand for places in one of the direct-grant schools in my constituency has doubled.
Therefore, the Government are now proposing to get rid of the direct-grant schools and have given them three alternatives. One is that they can go independent, which will mean that many of the children who now enjoy free places will no longer be able to do so at these schools. It will also mean, in the case of the school in my constituency, that the fees will be forced up by at least £ 150 a year. It means that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for direct-grant schools to maintain their present system of remission of fees for parents on limited incomes.
The second alternative is for the schools to close altogether, thus throwing a heavy burden on the local authorities, whose existing facilities are already inadequate.
The third alternative, which is what the Minister is seeking, is that the schools shall become fully maintained local authority schools. But at what cost? Has

the Minister done any calculations about this? The school to which I refer would cost the local authority £ 2 million to buy. It would probably cost the local authority another £ 500,000 to convert and adapt in order to meet its requirements for a sixth-form all-ability-entry school, and in addition, it would cost at least £ 400,000 per year to run the school. That would be the cost to the local authority for one school—that is to say, the cost to ratepayers.
This would be the cost to ratepayers already groaning beneath a rate increase of 55 per cent. This is a policy from a Minister who, only a few hours ago, was saying on radio that local authority expenditure would have to be considerably cut.
The word "doctrinaire" is used quite often in this context rather freely. My dictionary defines "doctrinaire" as
one who is an unpractical theoriser.
It is an appropriate description for those who advocate this particular policy. This policy is impracticable, illiberal and, what is more, out of touch with the views and wishes of thousands of parents who genuinely care about their childrens' education. I urge those who support this policy not to be too proud or too stubborn to think again.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: It is interesting to hear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may be a lawbreaker. It reminds me of something which I think Shakespeare wrote in "Antony and Cleopatra", about some titanic development which had occurred—possibly the death of Caesar—namely,
It should have shook lions into civil streets.
It is absolute nonsense. It is in keeping with the exotic language of the motion. When use is made of such language as
reckless disregard by the Secretary of State for Education and Science of the harmful effects of his policy on educational stanlards
one has to look a little more deeply to see what it is that is being aimed at and what is being concealed.
The reality is the old reality. There is nothing new about it. It is the intention of the Conservative Party to carry on with what it has always done—to defend


wealth, privilege and place and to strive against the democratic advance of education.—[Interruption.] No matter what the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) says, these are the realities. We know it, and the people who are listening to us and those who read about them will know it. They, along with us, are making the drive towards more comprehensive education—such a drive that the people who oppose it are ploughing the ocean, and there is no real chance of turning it back. Therefore, I wish that the Opposition would try to make it better and help us to try to improve it in every way possible.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) spoke of the Bullock Report. I know something about that, having given evidence to the Bullock Committee as the chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Primary Schools in my union, the National Union of Teachers. Based on my experience as a teacher, having seen the advance of standards side by side with certain degenerations in our society, having taught in a primary school and a middle school and having heard my children reading almost daily, it was never my opinion that that report would be condemnatory. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman used the word "damnatory". When speaking about the Bullock Report he said that it was not a condemnatory or damnatory report "as some of us feared". I heard some of my hon. Friends say "hoped" as a suggestion for replacing the word "feared".
The reality is that that report has upheld what teachers have been saying—that standards and reading ability are going ahead, although with great difficulties facing us because there are great difficulties in the society in which we live We hear attacks by Conservative Members on reading standards, and constant reports about a colossal amount of truancy and absenteeism. We hear exotic language used about violence and indiscipline. Conservative Members know, as we know, that these things proceed from deep within society itself. They are things which are deplored and which we are trying to set right in the face of all the attacks launched on our education system. These are the realities. We would dearly like to prevent that minority

doing the things that it does do and which it does not only in the classroom but at football matches and places outside where things go wrong.

Mr. William Shelton: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present standards of literacy and numeracy?

Mr. Flannery: It is a truism that we are never satisfied. I am never satisfied. Having spent my life in teaching, and knowing children as intimately as I do, I want our standards to be higher and better than they have ever been. They are better, and they are getting better and higher than they have ever been. These are the realities, which cannot be tucked away. No amount of accusation in trying to foster on to education the complications of society and the seeds of some wrongdoing which is not the product of the education system, which is trying to set those things right, will succeed.
Recently, I sat in the Chamber all day but did not manage to speak in the debate on what was laughingly called a "parents' charter". It was a rich parents' or middle-class parents' charter. It was a misnomer which should never have been applied. The Shadow Minister revealed his vast knowledge of the 1944 Act, but he knew and I knew that he had gone through that Act only a few weeks previously with a fine-toothed comb and therefore could mention Section 66 as being the small section he was using, along with the hon. Member for Streatham, in relation to the Bill which they introduced and which did not pass through Parliament. When we examined that Bill we found that it was totally wrong, as is the motion. This motion will not be approved.

Mr. William Shelton: rose—

Mr. Flannery: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. He made a speech much longer than mine will be.
The motion continues, in a pseudo-democratic manner, to use the antidemocratic methods that the Conservative Party has used continually to attack the splendid advances that we are making in education for our children and their parents. Some time ago, in my city of Sheffield, we were about to introduce complete comprehensivisation of the system. People said to us then "If you


use that as your main platform in the municipal elections, you are doomed." We said, "We shall go ahead on a principle." In that year we got the biggest vote ever, because the vast majority of people wanted education with no 11-plus examination for their children. These facts have been driven home.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was a famous by-election in the Conservative county of Surrey in which the vote was entirely on the issue of comprehensive education, and that the Labour Party, which had never won the seat previously, won it on that issue?

Mr. Flannery: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It proves conclusively, and will prove again, that the vast majority of people want comprehensive education because they know that the old system relegated 80 per cent. of our children to an inferior type of education—no matter how hard we teachers worked to make it as good as we could—and gave an elitist form of education in the direct-grant schools to the children of the rich and those privileged in society. The latter are the same kind of people who want favours from society all along the line—private beds in hospitals, private schools for their children, the best houses and the best of everything for themselves. Those are the people who struggle against the advances which are taking place in education despite their opposition—advances which will ultimately relegate all direct-grant schools to the dustbin or bring them into a better system in the maintained sector of education.
These are among the reasons why we are proud of the developments going on. As I have said here before, our primary schools are comprehensive, because all the children go into them except that section attending the private schools. Our primary schools are the most exciting schools in the world, with magnificent developments taking place. They are comprehensive schools. Children do not have to pass an examination in order to enter them.
The mentality of the "Black Paper" is the mentality which wants favouritism in the direct-grant schools. The same people want an examination in reading at 7-plus, when all teachers in the primary sector know that children are

listened to daily, continually, and do not need that examination. In the primary schools we are now feeling free from the weight of examination and able to teach things about life, not just catering for examinations. The mentality of the "Black Paper" that wants more and more examinations is the mentality which wants favouritism in the schools.
The Conservative Party has engaged in every possible scheme, every possible device, every possible manoeuvre, it can think of to preserve and develop elitist education at the expense of the children and the parents who are 80 per cent. of the community, and it is something the community is not going to tolerate. It is something we have pushed completely away, and no matter how many times the Opposition put these backward arguments, they will be refuted, not merely by Government Members but by the parents in their majority who know that elitist education is totally wrong.
The upper middle-class enemies of comprehensive education—we should like to welcome them into the State system—will now see that we are not against them. We are with them if they will come in and help us to develop comprehensive education for the majority of our children. We want them to come in, but if they do not we shall have to do our best democratically to advance the whole cause.
Comprehensive education has its weaknesses, but it has nowhere as near as many weaknesses as elitism, and the grammar school and the direct-grant school. We are learning every day. We admit, for example, that some of the schools were too big. We are not totally committed on that aspect, by the way. As has been explained by my right hon. Friend, this exercise had to be gone through. Initially, it was imposed on us. That may be changed. It may be in process of being changed. Although genuine difficulties exist in comprehensive education, the system has massive strengths for the whole of our young people. All schools differ as human being do, but we are going on from strength to strength, with more democracy in the schools, with new and better methods and with better examination results at the top. We promise that we shall have better and better and more and more comprehensive education, and


in the process not a single attempt will be made to break the law.

6.45 p.m.

Dr. Keith Hampson: One has a slight feeling of déjà vu, not merely from following the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), which I have done several times, but also in relation to his arguments, which have been heard continuously since 1944 from Government Members. We never seem to progress at all in our education debates.
I should like to give the Minister an opportunity to answer a point which he did not answer earlier, arising from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). My hon. Friend stressed that the option that the Government were trying to establish for the schools was to drive them into the maintained sector. Is he going to repudiate the noble Lord the Minister of State, or will he explain the statement that it would be exceptional for these schools to become county schools, and that they would become voluntarily-aided or voluntarily-controlled schools? This might make some difference to the attitude of the schools. What is his position on voluntarily-aided schools?

Mr. Armstrong: The Government's position has been quite clearly outlined in the letter. It is for the schools themselves to decide whether to opt to be voluntarily-aided schools. Any application will be received sympathetically. We have written to the athorities, and it will be a subject for discussion. We have asked for a statement of intent.

Dr. Hampson: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I now come to the general argument that we have heard from Government Members. One cannot help thinking of the Labour Party as the Hilda Bakers of education. She was the comedienne who used to say "He knows, yer know." The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough shouts "We know, yer know." In other words, it is impossible for us on the Conservative side to say anything about education. The Labour Party says it knows what we stand for. We do not stand for half the things that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough attributes to us, and we, too, wish to see all the difficulties, the anomalies, the problems of the disadvantaged

areas, and so on, in education sorted out and the position improved. There is common ground on that.

Mr. Flannery: I know that the hon. Gentleman believes in comprehensive education. I was addressing myself to his party in general because with honourable exceptions, its members do not believe in it. They are split on this. That is my point.

Dr. Hampson: If the hon. Gentleman had only listened over the years to what has been said, or read the Official Report, he would know that some figures were issued from the Department which showed the number of comprehensive schools which had come into being under Conservative Ministers—most of them. We believe in the principle. We have never stuck by the 11-plus as a rigid selection formula. We are asking for a diversified system. It is not a backward argument. It is the forward movement of the times. We have the editor of The Times Educational Supplement on our side, and Dr. Harry Judge, a distinguished comprehensive school headmaster, and Profesor Eggleston, who has some interesting research suggesting that able children may derive benefit from a special environment in which to develop their potential. At least Professor Eggleston indicates that research shows great uncertainty. We are arguing and always have argued for a flexible and diversified system. People like the editor of The Times Educational Supplement have now joined us in putting the case. Do Government Members not acknowledge that schools are different, and that it is not possible to establish a monolithic system? Do they not acknowledge that schools have different styles and curricula? That is why there is no such thing as a comprehensive school. They are all entirely different. There is no absolute yardstick, no absolute concept. That is what we are saying—and that individuals are different and have different potentials. Why can we not all recognise that? So why not establish a diversified system, at least, say, from 15 years of age? Would the Government not consider some sort of compromise, trying to bring the direct-grant schools into the system at, say, 14 or 15, as The Times Educational Supplement has suggested? I am sure that the


schools themselves would consider it. Why insist that every school should try to do everything? The attitude underlies the speeches of most Members opposite. We have had time and time again from the Government side accusations that the direct-grant schools were not good artistically; that they might be all right academically, but that even that was questionable. It was said that they did not teach handicrafts and art as well as do the good comprehensive schools. Why should every school try to reach the same standard in all subjects? But we would need greater flexibility throughout the catchment system. Why cannot young people themselves opt at 14 or 15? Students of that age are quite vocal about what they want today. They are no longer children. They are vocal about what they think they want in the future. Moreover, there must come a point when we, as teachers or administrators, must recognise that some people are good at certain things and not so good at others, that they have a bent for following a certain path in the future, academically or otherwise. So, of course, there must be a point of separation and a point at which selection is made. It is inherent in education and in the nature of human beings. That is really all we are asking—that the system should reflect reality.
There is, however, a crucial difference of philosophy, but we are open-minded while right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side pursue doctrine. They have closed minds. They stand firm on what they have always stood firm on, and that is an image of a school which does not and cannot exist; it is a mythical creation.
What we are questioning is the concept of the comprehensive school. But we can have a comprehensive system, which is something quite different. Within a comprehensive system it is possible to have specialist schools, as happens in America and Russia, for which either the students or the parents, or a combination of both, can opt. In the United States they often opt for the neighbourhood school, but if a student has a certain potential he can go to another school.

Mr. Bryan Davies: We on the Government side of the House are often accused of indulging in dogma when we are argu

ing the comprehensive case on precisely the terms which the hon. Gentleman has identified, namely, the necessity for flexibility. There is no more dogmatic statement than the statement than at the age of 11 we know the academic children or the artistic children.

Dr. Hampson: Nobody is arguing that. We are not saying that we can automatically guarantee to tell. But it must emerge that some people are able academically and will benefit from a high academic traditional curriculum. Indeed, some comprehensive schools are almost more like grammar schools than the grammar schools, and certainly some are better in some respects. Let us accept that fact. But we cannot get away from the fact that academic learning is important, and that the training of the intellect is crucial to any modern society.
Therefore, one of our charges in the motion is that what the Government are doing is irrelevant, first, because there is no money. It is also irrelevant and illogical in the context of Labour Party thinking, which despises private education. The Labour Party talks all the time about the social basis of education, saying that schools and their quality are conditioned by the environment, yet the Government are proposing something which will make the situation worse and will create more social division in the system and cause the direct-grant schools, imperfect though they may be on social catchment grounds—as one could argue all schools are—to become more exclusive, either as neighbourhood schools or as private schools.
What the Government propose is also irrelevant and dangerous because of what is happening in the Department, as the civil servants spend their time sorting out the direct grant policy. Surely there are other priorities to be sorted out. Do the Government have any educational priorities clearly established at this time of economic restraint and retrenchment? What is happening about the cost of this exercise?
What the Government propose is irrelevant, particularly at a time when there is no money available for comprehensive reorganisation; but there is a more basic point. Opportunities for good academic learning will be lost, particularly in


deprived urban areas where children of certain families could have academic learning from which they would benefit. There is a serious problem in the urban areas, as there is in the United States, where they are highlighted. Therefore, to lose academic learning in an urban community is not only irrelevant and illogical; it is positively dangerous.
The noble Lord the Minister of State said at a conference last week that manpower planning was essential. He believes that education is co-related with economic growth and prosperity. If that is so, this country needs the best quality education it can get. Some of the direct-grant schools offer the best, but the Government propose to drive them out of the reach of ordinary people and to push them into the hands of the rich. That is a topsy-turvy, illogical and silly attitude.
We keep going through these sterile debates. Cannot we achieve some common ground in public life about the need for diversification? Schools are different Let us now try to achieve flexibility between schools. Let us also acknowledge that it is important to strive for the better than average and to produce excellence. The Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Home Secretary, who has just come into the Chamber, surely like to imagine that they are better than average, and perform better than average. Let us acknowledge that, and not simply be concerned with average performance, which so often underlies what Government Members say.
This is a debate not simply about the technicalities of what will happen to the direct-grant schools but about the philosophy of the Conservative and Labour Parties on the nature of education and our education system. It is no good hon. Members opposite pooh-pooing the difficulties in our system and the problems of large neighbourhood comprehensive schools. Why cannot we have common ground? Why must hon. Members opposite attribute to us reaction and backwardness, as so many of them, notably the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, always do?
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said that at last the Government were doing something which they promised to do many years ago. The hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr.

Davies) said that the direct-grant school system was an historical accident which had drifted on, and that it was time that it was chopped. Surely there is no absolute merit in policies. They do not go on immutably from age to age. They must be taken in context—and context changes. Educational thinking changes. The fashions of today are not the fashions of 10 or 20 years ago. Even The Times Educational Supplement and many other commentators are thinking afresh about comprehensive education, and its pattern is changing.
What the Government propose is in reckless disregard of the priorities. They are not thinking clearly and they have not got their priorities sorted out. They are charging ahead with an outmoded and outdated policy which is irrelevant and will waste money. It shows the blocked minds of people who are obsessed with a certain doctrine and who are not prepared to change.
The Times Educational Supplement asked whether the Minister is a "true believer" or an "agnostic". Is he one of the many Members on his side of the House who believe in a monolithic comprehensive system and who seek to create a system which cannot possibly exist, or is he an agnostic? Is he, in other words, prepared to see not a progression of schools but a network, a flexible pattern of different schools catering for different needs and interests? If he is an agnostic he should not be doing what he is doing in his direct-grant proposals.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: The hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson) has been defending one type of school—the direct-grant and grammar school. He is not interested in variety in the rest of the schools.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton), who moved this narrow, legal motion, started by discussing some broad points. He said that comprehensive schools were not big enough to provide adequate sixth forms. He made an excellent case for children ending secondary education at 16 years of age and going on to sixth form colleges. Most of the grammar schools about which he talked do not have adequate sixth forms to give a variety of curriculum or of choice of A level subjects, which could be done by enlarging the scope of the sixth forms.
The whole purpose of the Conservative Party's campaign has been to defend privilege. For the past 30 or 40 years we have seen a gradual retreat. First, right hon. and hon. Members opposite said that they agreed with the abolition of the 11-plus examination. Some of them did. However, when the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Education and Science I asked her whether she agreed with the 11-plus selection examination. She had the effrontery to reply "I have no opinion on that".
That just about sums up what the hon. Member for Streatham put forward today. He said that he did not defend selection at the age of 11, and proceeded to do just that, or at least he tried to do it. Every word he spoke was aimed at the retention of 11-plus selection wherever that could be achieved, and everywhere that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) goes he tries to achieve precisely the same thing. First he tries to persuade the Conservative local education authorities which want to go comprehensive to change their minds, and he uses the legal approach. He talks about direct-grant schools being a breach—

It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government business).

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM

7.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I beg to move
That the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 (Continuance) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.
The effect of the order is to continue the provisions of the Act in force for a further six months from 29th May, when they would otherwise expire.
The House will recall that the bombing campaign in Great Britain, which began with the car bombs planted in London in March 1973, continued throughout the remainder of 1973 and 1974. Up to the middle of November last year 21 people had been killed in bomb incidents in Great Britain and 570 injured. Then, on 21st November, two explosions in public houses in Birmingham killed 21 people and injured nearly 200.
The bombing campaign had always been largely indiscriminate, but after the Birmingham bombs—which were violence on a new and more dreadful scale—there was widespread agreement in Parliament and outside that it was right to take the additional preventive powers in the Act. It was in November necessary to act quickly in taking preventive action to provide protection against the risk of still further violence from the terrorists and against any possibility of a hostile reaction against the peaceful and settled Irish community in Britain. That was a real danger for a period, happily brief, at that stage.
But when I introduced the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill last November I said that I did not wish these exceptional powers to remain in force a moment longer than was necessary. That is still my view. I said that it could not be without reluctance that we comtemplated powers of the kind proposed in the Bill, involving as they must some encroachment—limited but real—on the liberties of individual citizens. I therefore have no intention of letting the renewal of these powers become a habit. I am satisfied, however, that it would not be right to allow the provisions of the Act to lapse as early as 28th May.
The security situation continues to give cause for concern. In the weeks following the explosions in Birmingham there were further bomb incidents in Great Britain, and they continued until a cease-fire was announced by the Provisional IRA just before Christmas. The cease-fire broke down in Northern Ireland on 16th January and there were further bomb incidents in London towards the end of that month. Shortly afterwards the cease-fire was resumed, and there have been no terrorist incidents in Britain since the end of January.
On 26th February, however, a police officer—Police Constable Tibble—was shot dead in Hammersmith, and subsequent police investigations led to the discovery of what was plainly an IRA bomb factory. We must assume that plans exist for the resumption of terrorist operations in Great Britain should the cease-fire come to an end.
The cease-fire itself continues to be fragile. Since it restarted on 16th January there have been a number of incidents involving the Provisionals. These include the murder of an RUC constable on 10th May. What is still being sought is a genuine and sustained cessation of violence, which is the essential test of the cease-fire. However, sectarian and factional murders are being committed in Northern Ireland with distressing frequency.
In these circumstances, and for the time being, I believe that our duty is to keep the Act in being for a further, strictly limited period. Were we to let it lapse and then, against our hopes, to be confronted with a breakdown of the ceasefire, we would all look very foolish indeed.
I do not propose in this short opening speech to try to anticipate and answer all the points which hon. Members will wish to raise. But while in commenting on the purposes of the Act I shall inevitably touch on some of them I will try to deal with others when winding up, which, with the leave of the House, I shall do myself at the end of the debate.
There are four main groups of provisions in the Act. Part I, covering Sections 1 and 2, deals with proscribed organisations. The Act proscribed the IRA and gave the Secretary of State the

power, which has not been exercised, to add to the list of proscribed organisations by order.
It is an offence under Section 1 to belong to a proscribed organisation, or give or solicit support for such an organisation and to arrange or address a meeting held on behalf of such an organisation. Section 2 prohibits the display of support in public for a proscribed organisation.
Part I does not directly reduce or give protection against terrorist activity. Neither I nor anyone else has ever pretended that proscription would do that. The primary object of this part was to remove what was widely regarded as an affront to the British people, and, against the background of incidents which showed signs of leading to an unjustified but none the less dangerous backlash against the Irish community as a whole, it seemed, and will still seem, to many people intolerable that it should be lawful to collect money for the IRA and to parade with banners proclaiming support for it.
Only one person has been convicted under these provisions. It does not follow, however, that they are either unnecessary or ineffective. The Act is preventive in intention, and since it became law there has been a marked reduction in the kind of activities with which Sections 1 and 2 were designed to deal. I do not think it would be right, nor do I believe the country would accept, that in present circumstances these activities should be permitted to recur. We cannot allow, for example, collections of money for the IRA, whether in pubs or other public places, to take place. Displays of support for the IRA would still be offensive to a great number of people, and although the police can sometimes take action against people wearing political uniforms under the Public Order Act 1936, the provisions of Part I of the 1974 Act are the only ones under which action against other forms of support for the IRA can be taken.
Part II of the Act, covering Sections 3 to 6, empowers the Secretary of State, if he is satisfied that a person is concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or is attempting or may attempt to enter the country with a view to being so concerned, to make an


exclusion order against that person. An exclusion order prohibits the person against whom it is made from being in, or entering, Great Britain or, if he is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, from being in or entering the United Kingdom.
Since the Act came into operation, I have made 51 exclusion orders. Forty-four of these were served on the person concerned, and 13 people have exercised their right to make representations objecting to the order. These 13 cases were referred to the advisers nominated by me, and after considering their reports I revoked five of the orders. Two cases are still outstanding.
Thirty-nine of the orders have been enforced, and 22 people were removed to Northern Ireland and 17 to the Irish Republic.
Seven of the exclusion orders were not served. In five of these cases the person concerned is believed to be outside the United Kingdom. In the other two cases the person concerned was charged with murder and I revoked the orders before they were served.
The people against whom I have made orders include prominent members of the Provisional IRA who I was satisfied had organised acts of terrorism here; a few prominent members of the Official IRA who I was satisfied had been making preparations for acts of terrorism; people who had been involved on behalf of the Provisional IRA in the commission of acts of terrorism, for example by allowing their houses to be used for the manufacture of bombs; and people who were closely involved in the Provisional IRA in Ireland and whose motives for coming to Great Britain were deeply suspect. Some people in this House and outside have expressed surprise and dismay that, in view of their longer-standing cease-fire, any members of the Official IRA should have been involved. I can assure the House that nobody, Official or Provisional, has been excluded because of his views, however extreme they may be. I have been concerned with gelignite, not with ideology. But I cannot begin to accept the view that membership of the Official IRA should confer immunity if there is good reason to suspect a threat.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am most impressed by my right hon. Friend's statement that he is concerned with gelignite and not with ideology. However, we are also concerned with evidence. In two cases he has said that he has been able to bring charges of murder. What concerns us is that the evidence on which my right hon. Friend, with his known sensitivity, exercises his judgment in exclusion orders is not known and, therefore, a number of statements he made earlier about people being concerned with this, that and the other could be traced to various people and used against them. Therefore, they had already been convicted by virtue of the fact that my right hon. Friend has said it here.

Mr. Jenkins: I follow my hon. Friend's point. It could certainly not in any way affect the possibility of their being convicted. I make it clear to the House that we must have, in the special circumstances with which we have been confronted recently, the Special Powers Act because it is concerned with the prevention and not the punishment of terrorism and because I thought it right to take measures—and the House supported me—to try to protect people against terrorism, even in circumstances in which there was not evidence which would secure a conviction in a court of law.
My hon. Friend was putting a slightly more complicated but understandable point to me. He said that if I say that those whom I have excluded are people who I am satisfied were or might be concerned with acts of terrorism, this is a statement that is prejudicial to them. I suppose that to that extent it is, but if the House wishes to debate this matter I am bound to defend the actions which I have taken. To be honest, I do not see how I can avoid the dilemma.
I have endeavoured to state this in a general form and not to proceed further than I think is reasonable in dealing with these cases.
The safeguard provided by Section 4 of the Act, which gives the right to make representations objecting to the making of an exclusion order, has worked well. As I have informed the House, I nominated Lord Alport and Mr. Ronald Waterhouse, QC, to report to me on


objections made under this section. I am most grateful to them for the time and trouble they have devoted to this task. This is not, and cannot be by its nature, an open process, but it is certainly not a meaningless one, as is clearly indicated by the fact that in five of the 13 cases where the person exercised his right to make representations I revoked the orders.
The exclusion orders do not, of course, represent the sum total of action taken against the IRA. About 50 people are at present in prison after conviction of various terrorist offences, and a further 20 are on remand awaiting trial.
The powers of Part II of the Act have enabled me to keep out of Britain a number of people who had organised or taken part in terrorist activities, or who I believed had come here for terrorist purposes. If Part II of the Act were now to lapse it is important that the House should realise that, not only would I be unable to make any more exclusion orders but, perhaps more important, the people currently excluded would immediately be free to return. It would be too soon to permit this.
Section 7 of the Act empowers a constable to arrest without warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a person guilty of an offence under Section 1 or 3 of the Act, a person concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or a person subject to an exclusion order.
A person arrested under Section 7 may not be held in custody in right of the arrest for more than 48 hours, but the Secretary of State may extend this period to a total of seven days in any particular case.
As I explained when introducing the Bill six months ago, the object of this provision is to enable the police to hold people whom they believe to be involved in acts of terrorism but whom they cannot immediately connect with specific offences. It enables the police to make inquiries and check police records in order to establish whether there is evidence on which specific charges can be brought or, if not, whether there is evidence on which it would be right for the Secretary of State to make an exclusion order.
I have given authority for the extended detention of 91 people arrested under Section 7. In 24 of these cases I subsequently signed exclusion orders and the people concerned were removed.
The police have arrested 265 other people under the section who have been held for shorter periods than 48 hours. One hundred and eight of these were released within 12 hours and a further 116 within 24 hours; 41 were held for between 24 and 48 hours.

Mr. John Watkinson: Could my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he has refused to extend the period of detention, at the request of the police, at any stage?

Mr. Jenkins: I do not believe that I have refused a request for extension. I have authorised extended detention in 91 cases. I shall give my hon. Friend a definitive answer when I wind up the debate. There have certainly been few cases—indeed, I am not sure that there have been any. There has been a different position in relation to exclusion orders, as I have indicated and as my hon. Friends knows.
Twenty-six people detained under the Act have been charged with criminal offences. It could reasonably be pointed out that a considerable number of the 265 other people, with whom I have been dealing—apart from the 91 for whom I granted special extension of the powers of detention—would have been arrested under normal police powers if the Act had not been in force. What the section does is to strengthen, extend and perhaps in some cases regularise police powers of arrest and detention in relation to suspected terrorists. It may in certain circumstances considerably assist the police in dealing with terrorism to be able to detain a suspect for up to seven days. But this can be done only with my specific authority, and has also been sparingly used, as the total of 91 cases indicates.
There has occasionally been some confusion in Questions. In the answers which we have given I am not sure that we have made the position as clear as we should have. The numbers held under the Act—about 500—have been referred to as though they were held under extensions of powers of detention for the extra five days. That is not so. The total


involved under this provision has been 91. But to keep open this option of applying for the extra five days, the police have naturally tended to arrest suspected terrorists under the Act rather than under their normal powers when both courses were open to them. In fact, three major incidents account for the arrest of 171 suspects. Forty-six were arrested under Section 7 in the course of police investigations following the explosions in public houses in Guildford in October; 76 after shots were fired at three police officers in Southampton in December, and an IRA bomb factory was discovered there; and 46 after the fatal shooting of Police Constable Tibble at the end of February and the discovery of another IRA bomb factory in Hammersmith. Clearly, most of these people would have been detained even if the Act had not been in force.
The section has been fairly extensively used, and with positive results. Chief officers of police have no doubt that it has helped in a very difficult period and would not like to see it prematurely dropped.
Section 8 of the Act empowers the Secretary of State to make an order providing, among other things, for the examination of travellers entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland. It confers powers on examining officers, who in Great Britain are in practice constables, to examine travellers and to arrest and detain them if necessary.
Article 9 of the order provides that a person may be detained under the authority of an examining officer for up to seven days, or, if the Secretary of State so directs, for another five days after the conclusion of the examination. I have not had occasion to give a direction under this article, but 224 people have been detained at the ports under the authority of examining officers. Only 32 of these were held for more than 48 hours, and in 12 of those cases I made exclusion orders and the people concerned were removed. Only 20 people who were not subsequently excluded have therefore been held for more than 48 hours, and no one for more than seven days.
The background to this section is that after the car bombs were planted in London in March 1973 the police greatly increased the surveillance carried out at

ports dealing with Irish traffic. Surveillance has been maintained at a high level since then. I think it is true to say that in the interchanges and the debates which we had following the various incidents of last year, opinion in nearly all parts of the House attached great importance to effective surveillance over movement between Ireland and Great Britain.
It is possible for this surveillance to be carried out without special statutory powers, as it was before the Act came into force, because in general travellers are ready to co-operate voluntarily with the police. But the existence of statutory powers greatly strengthens the hand of examining officers. The vital task of surveillance can be carried out more effectively if the police have an express power to question people and detain them, if, in their judgment, this is necessary.
The essence of the Act is, as its name implies, prevention. It is an Act—though this is sometimes forgotten, I think, in the discussion about it—not for the punishment of terrorism, which is dealt with under the ordinary law, but for the prevention of terrorism. The surveillance at the ports, quite apart from the number of terrorists or potential terrorists actually detected, has a considerable deterrent value, and is an essential part of our precautions. The conditions under which this work is carried out are often burdensome, and the police officers who undertake it—who have achieved some notable successes, both before and after the Act came into force—are entitled, I believe, to such support as we can give them. To abolish the powers contained in the supplemental order would be compatible only with a reversion to a lower level of surveillance at the ports, and I do not think that we could yet contemplate such a step.
I therefore believe it to be in the public interest that the Act should remain in force for a further six months. It has proved itself to be a useful addition to the powers of the police, and, therefore, to the protection of the public, and it would be premature in the present rather uncertain situation to give up these additional powers.
I know that some hon. Members who may not be opposed to the powers would nevertheless have preferred the Act to


lapse and a fresh Bill to be introduced, which we could have examined and debated clause by clause in a more leisurely and considered way than was possible last November. I understand the force of that argument, but I have not been persuaded that this was necessary on this occasion. Given the fact, of which, as I have told the House, I am overwhelmingly convinced, that we need for the present to retain the Act, I can think of no amendment that I would wish to propose to the House. But I stress that I do not see the Act as anything other than a temporary measure. I am determined that we should not make an easy habit of renewal. I obviously cannot say at this stage whether we shall be able to dispense with the whole of it or at least substantial parts of it in November. I hope we may.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend at least prepared to say that if there was no renewal of urban terrorism in this country he would expect a substantial proportion of these measures to be replaced by something else in November?

Mr. Jenkins: I think it will be better if I proceed with what I had intended to say about that.
I shall certainly ask for no automatic, unconsidered renewal. I am also prepared to tell the House that unless in November I feel able to recommend the dropping of substantial parts of the Act, I shall not ask the House to proceed by order. If, regrettably, we have to continue with the full or main scope of the powers of the Act, I would think it right to introduce fresh legislation and thus to make it possible for the House as a whole to review the full working in some detail and, of course, for individual hon. Members to table amendments.
It might be necessary in the process of renewal by legislation to cover the interim period by an order for less than six months while the House considered the legislation and it went through. But, unless we were dropping substantial parts of the Act, I would not propose to ask for a renewal for another six months in November.
I do not like special powers legislation of this sort. But I am convinced that

the Act has helped to protect us in a difficult position, and that in a fragile situation it continues to be necessary for the immediate future. Therefore, I ask the House to accept the order.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Opposition support the continuation of these powers for a further six months, because we believe that it would be highly imprudent to abandon them in the present situation. They are a disagreeable necessity. We agree with the Home Secretary that if they are still needed in six months' time there should be new legislation. Legislation necessarily rushed through the House in 24 hours should not remain permanently on the statute book. If such powers are to be preserved after the next six months the whole subject should be thrashed out with care and at more leisure than was possible in the emergency conditions of last November.
Equally, it would have been wrong to have embarked on a major legislative revision at this time. For one thing, we all hope, with varying degrees of conviction, that the situation in Ireland in six months' time will be such that the order can be allowed to lapse. For another, if that hope is vain, it is more sensible to gain another six months' experience of the Act before introducing major innovations or alterations.
That would not, of course, be so if the working of the Act had revealed major deficiencies or had turned out to be a much greater infringement of the liberty of the subject than seemed likely six months ago. That has not happened. The alarmist tone of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who is not here this evening, in his speech on Second Reading has fortunately turned out to be unjustified. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who made a much more temperate and considered speech than did the hon. Member for Pontypool, has also been proved wrong by experience. He said:
I do not believe that this Bill will have the effect that is desired. What is even more dangerous is that it will lead to very dangerous erosion of the civil liberties of the people of this country."—[Official Report, 28th November 1975; Vol. 882, c. 667.]


Of course there is an infringement of the liberty of the subject—that is conceded—but it has been acceptably contained.
The first part of the Act has undoubtedly been successful in one respect. It has kept the IRA off the streets, and the British people have not had to see either in person or on television the IRA strutting through the streets of London or other cities, and we all welcome that. I think, too, that it has cut down the activities of the political wings of both the Provisional and the Official IRA, and that also is to the good.
On the other hand, as the Home Secretary said, very few people have been charged under this section of the Act, but that merely illustrates the difficulties of this sort of legislation. It is difficult to prove membership of any body, and that is one reason why the previous Conservative Government did not bring in legislation of this kind. Another reason was that touched upon by the Minister of State in his speech on Second Reading when he said about the banning of the IRA:
The House knows that both this Government and the previous Government have been reluctant to take that step. The Government took the step only because in the end it became clear that, although the police would find it more difficult with the IRA underground to make proper contacts and to see what was going on, the open panoply of IRA activities was such an affront to our people that it had to be banned for that purpose … the police now accept … that this is the time to proscribe the IRA."—[Official Report, 28th November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 746.]
I think we are all agreed that that was and is the general view.
It is the second part of the Act, relating to exclusion orders, that is the most disturbing. It is particularly disturbing because, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and many other hon. Members pointed out, it gives powers to exclude United Kingdom citizens from one part of the United Kingdom and to send them to another part of it. The smallness of the numbers involved is only partially reassuring. The Home Secretary said that 22 people had been sent to Northern Ireland and 17 to the Republic. What is surprising is that none of the 22 sent to Ulster has been imprisoned or interned. In our debates last November it was assumed by the hon. Member for Belfast, West, my hon.

Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and other hon. Members, that such men would certainly be interned, yet none has been.
While nobody wants internment unless it is absolutely necessary, it is surely a matter for comment that men who were deemed by the Home Secretary to be terrorists of one sort or another should be deemed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland suitable people to go freely about their business in Ulster. What is the explanation? Has the Home Secretary been unexpectedly severe and the Northern Ireland Secretary unexpectedly lenient? That seems improbable. But, on the face of it, either terrorists have been allowed to go free in Northern Ireland or the Act has been used to dump a few undesirable men—undesirable, but not terrorists—back into Northern Ireland. I realise that the Home Secretary cannot go into great detail on this matter, but I should be grateful if he would give us a further explanation.
The "Draconian powers," as the Home Secretary described them on Second Reading, have resulted in very few prosecutions, but, as he said, prevention is the main objective of the Act, and, in view of the improvement in the security situation since last November, the lack of prosecutions is not necessarily a criticism. As I said earlier, the Act has removed the public affront by keeping those black berets, dark glasses and set faces off the streets.

Mr. George Cunningham: I cannot let that remark pass unchallenged. Surely it must be said that on at least one occasion when members of the IRA chose to march wearing dark glasses and berets they were successfully prosecuted under previous legislation—the Public Order Act—for the wearing of uniforms?

Mr. Gilmour: That is so, but there has been doubt whether that uniform would be caught by the Public Order Act, and there is no harm in being absolutely certain.

Mr. George Cunningham: It was caught.

Mr. Gilmour: Yes, but there is not always total unanimity in decisions of the courts. As I remember, the case was


dealt with in a lower court, so the point I make is not affected.
In view of the present situation in Northern Ireland we agree with the Government that this is no time to dismantle the Act, and we support its continuance on the understanding the Home Secretary eventually gave us. At the beginning of his speech, when he said he would not make a habit of this, I thought that he would not be so forthright, but at the end he was forthright. We accept continuance on the understanding that in six months' time the order will not be reintroduced and that either it will be allowed to elapse or new legislation will be placed before us.

Mr. McNamara: That is not quite what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. Gilmour: I think it is a fair translation.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I think that it is a fair translation. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) was following the point fairly closely. I have in mind that there are, broadly speaking, and four main parts to the Act. If the situation were such that I had to ask the House to renew four or three parts of the Act I should certainly do so by legislation. I do not exclude the possibility that we might drop two parts and continue with two parts or possibly one part. I cannot specify further than that. In those circumstances, if we dropped substantial parts, it might be reasonable to proceed by order.

Mr. Gilmour: It might depend on which parts were retained. On that understanding we believe that the order should be made because we firmly believe that the dangers of the Act are much less than the dangers it is designed to meet.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I find a measure such as this almost impossible to justify except in the immediate circumstances which existed after the Birmingham outrages. At that time it was important for Parliament to be seen to do something even if what it did was not particularly relevant. It is important to make a distinction between Parliament and the Government. Immediately after the outrages the Government,

under existing legislation, took effective action, but it was important that Parliament should be seen to do something immediately afterwards. In those circumstances this emergency legislation could just about be excused. But six months later no such excuse exists.
When the Act was introduced no one disputed that it infringed basic human rights. No one argued that it could be justified, save as extreme emergency legislation. Everyone recognised the fear—as with other emergency legislation which has been passed by the House—that it would become permament legislation, like the Official Secrets Act, the Incitement to Disaffection Act and other Acts which remained on the statute book long after they were intended to disappear and ended up by being used in ways which Parliament never intended. There was that real fear when these measures were introduced.
We must ask ourselves why we should continue this measure for another six months. Does public opinion demand that it should be kept? I hardly think so. If public opinion is making any demands, it is much more concerned that we should find a solution to the real problem of Northern Ireland—if necessary by getting our troops out—rather than continuing with this measure. Public opinion about this measure is not likely to change very much merely by the passage of another six months. It is much more likely to change because of other events.
Are we keeping the Act because it has worked? The police thought that making the IRA an illegal organisation was not very relevant at the time. In their view it was not important. I have not found any evidence that the police think that proscribing the IRA has helped. My right hon. Friend has mentioned the advantages of being able to stop people carrying out displays in IRA uniform. It has already been pointed out that that could almost certainly have been done without emergency legislation.
Next, there is the question of people making collections for the IRA. I have a suspicion that we have had far more of these illegal collections taking place. It was very often the mode of collection before we introduced the emergency legislation. People did not say that they were collecting for the IRA for weapons;


they dressed it up in some other way. The dressing up continues. It has not been stopped by proscribing the IRA. It would be far better if it were clearly seen what people were collecting for, as the vast majority would not give anything anyway.
The suggestion that we should get some benefit by proscribing the IRA has not been proved to have worked. Should we keep this legislation because the detaining of people by the police has been useful? I know that it is impossible to go into individual cases, but I have not been convinced that by detaining people for long periods we have ended up getting a great deal of extra information. My right hon. Friend has been asked whether he has been required to exercise the right to allow detainees to be kept for longer periods. In the nature of things, that must be a choice for my right hon. Friend but he cannot possibly know what information might be acquired by keeping them a little longer. I do not believe that that section of the Act has proved to be particularly effective. I would like to be convinced, but I am not.
I turn to the question of powers to deport. They may have been used with effect to serve the orders to remove the 51 people, but like all repressive measures the Act has probably ensured less sympathy for the police and less sympathy for the Government amongst the Irish community in this country. The injustice of just one mistake may well have done far more harm than the good of deporting just one person. So far, one or two cases have been documented in respect of which doubt exists as to how fair the procedure has been in practice, but I have heard considerable rumours from the Irish community, based on no real fact but put forward on the basis that the Act exists and that unfairness has occurred.
That is the major danger of this sort of legislation. It allows and even encourages that sort of rumour. It is very difficult to stop the rumours. My right hon. Friend has taken action in respect of one case, but the rumours continue. Should we keep the Act because the Home Secretary is phasing it out? I know that we have had the assurance that it will not again be automatically renewed. I would be inclined to vote

for its renewal now if I could see some way in which we were deliberately phasing it out over the next six months, if I could see that from a certain date my right hon. Friend would not be signing any deportation orders, provided the present political climate continued, and that from a slightly later date the powers of the police to arrest people and detain them for such a lengthy period would not be used.
It might be more important if, during the next six months, we could consider the one major area of criticism mounted against the Act, namely, the question of some independent appeals procedure, particularly against the police. That was pressed very hard when the legislation was passed by the House. It was suggested by many hon. Members that before the renewal came up there should be a completely separate piece of legislation to deal with independent appeals against the police. I have in mind appeals based on the misuse of the powers given to the police. It would help me a great deal if I felt that before we were asked to deal with this measure again the independent appeals procedure would be on the statute book. Unless there are assurances of that kind I feel that we are in danger of having a fairly repressive measure left on the statute book for year after year.
We have had the assurance that if necessary the Government will introduce a new piece of legislation. I have great doubts about a new piece of legislation. Parliament would have the opportunity to go through it and scrutinise it, but it might well be basically the same repressive measure, with a few saving liberal clauses in it.
Now is the time to get rid of this Act. We have a truce, and it appears to be working. I believe that the only effective way to defeat terrorists is to isolate them—to ensure that the Irish community in this country will not harbour them and that it abhors the violence that they have brought with them. That is the key point.
We should not be doing anything to give hostages to terrorists. Any legislation which appears to discriminate against a community begins to have that effect. That is the sad picture from Northern Ireland—that small pieces of repressive legislation have made one section of the


community begin to feel that it has grounds for grievance. I hope that we can have positive assurances from my right hon. Friend. If not, I hope that the House will consider defeating this measure.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: My colleagues and I support the extension of this legislation with exactly the same sort of reservations that we held when it was first introduced. Perhaps I should say that those reservations are more strongly held today than they were previously.
We are happy to be able to note that the legislation has been successful in that it has contained terrorism in Great Britain. Contrary to the opinions held by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), I believe that it has reassured the Irish community in Great Britain. It is certain that life for the Irish community would have been very difficult if steps had not been taken to control IRA terrorism in Great Britain.
The Home Secretary has asked us to renew or extend this legislation because of the present uncertain situation. I find that a somewhat unhappy way of defining the situation. We are in considerable difficulty, because we have not had an opportunity to debate the consequences of the so-called cease-fire of the IRA in its Northern Ireland campaign. I believe that the situation is very serious. There is no evidence that the IRA campaign is being called off or that there is any rundown in IRA potential. Indeed, I believe that the strength of the IRA is rapidly approaching the height of 1973, and I have considerable forebodings as to what the late summer or early autumn may hold for us. It would have been valuable if we had been able to debate the situation of the IRA in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. However, no one can dispute that it is prudent for the time being to extend this legislation.
I am concerned, however, that the orders under Section 8, which have been made in respect of the control of the movement of people, appear in many ways to be unsatisfactory. Certainly in Northern Ireland the land frontier is still very much an open frontier and movement across it is all too easy. People arriving at our ports and airports are

going through a form of checking which I find, unfortunately, is all too often slipshod.
Perhaps one of the difficulties is the rather haphazard way of identifying people who are moving. There is a very good case for laying down some standards of identification. Whether it be by passport or by travel permit is a matter of opinion, but there need to be more clearly defined documents of entry. I believe that police forces on both sides of the Irish Sea would agree that for the security forces the observation of movement is very important in the field of intelligence.
The reservations we had when the legislation was first introduced are still held very strongly. We are somewhat reassured in that the Home Secretary said in his introductory remarks that if the legislation is to be substantially renewed in the autumn he will do it by fresh legislation. If that should prove to be the case, I appeal to him to look at the anomalies that exist and, in particular, at the very unhappy situation where IRA terrorists suspected of being a menace in Great Britain can be excluded to Northern Ireland where, apparently, they are free to be a threat to the citizens of Northern Ireland.
The Home Secretary said that 22 people have been excluded from Great Britain to Northern Ireland—another part of the United Kingdom. I cannot understand how anyone can feel that a man who has shown that he is prepared to commit IRA terrorism in Great Britain is safe to be sent to Northern Ireland. I should have thought that he would be an even greater risk in Northern Ireland. We were all very dismayed that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland apparently took no action under the powers he has. It is not surprising that there has been a growing loss of confidence amongst the citizens of Northern Ireland in this respect. The whole question of exclusion orders in so far as they relate to Northern Ireland, and the capacity to make exclusion orders from Northern Ireland, needs to be looked at urgently.
I do not think that there is anything more that I can usefully say, except to ask the Home Secretary to convey our congratulations to the police here in Great Britain on the manner in which they have


used these very strong powers. They have shown considerable skill and consideration as they have set about their tasks, and all of us in the House must feel reassured by the extent of knowledge that the police have of the situation.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: Today and last November when we discussed the Act which we are now renewing references have been made to the feelings of the Irish community in their country about the introduction of these measures. I have in my constituency what I suppose is one of the larger Irish communities in the country, and I wish to put it on record that over the last six months I have received not one complaint from any member of that community in respect of these provisions. That is an interesting point of fact. It does not mean that we should then say that there is no reason why these provisions should not be continued.
The way in which the House passed the legislation last November and the way in which it appears to be proceeding to renew it today are two different illustrations of things which are wrong with the House of Commons. Last November we had—I will not call it panic legislation, but an emergency situation which we dealt with less than perfectly.
Today, as was predictable and as was predicted then, we have a very small House which is apparently prepared to renew these fundamentally important provisions but is giving the matter only a fraction of the attention which the House should devote to a matter of this importance.
The way things look at the moment, it is perfectly possible that this debate, which is scheduled to last for four and a half hours, will pack up before then because not enough Members want to say anything on one side or the other to keep it going until the scheduled hour of 11.30 p.m.
This indicates not so much that the House is not interested in the essential matters of principle which are involved here but that what we ought to be discussing tonight are not the fundamental matters of principle. I think that there is a vast majority in the House in favour of continuing the legislation

in substance. Tonight we ought to be discussing the details.
The details should be discussed in Standing Committee where there could be the to-ing and fro-ing of Standing Committee procedure. I still regret that the decision was taken to renew the legislation by order instead of by Bill. Had it been renewed by Bill, we could have done with probably three hours, on present showing, of Second Reading debate, with the rest in Standing Committee.
I know that this is a bad year for parliamentary time, but if the Bill had been prepared for from last November—and I raised the point in the Committee stage debate last November—the time could have been found in Standing Committee.
This is too fundamental a matter for Parliament to be able to say that it has not got time. In any case, the argument that there is a shortage of parliamentary time is complete boloney. We are short of parliamentary time only because we do not organise ourselves properly.

Mr. Bob Cryer: It is about time that the Government did something.

Mr. Cunningham: No, it is not about time that the Government did something. It is about time that the House did something and stopped looking to the Government to take action—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I doubt very much if that comes within the ambit of the order under discussion. I ask the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) not to encourage other hon. Members to lengthen their speeches so that the debate might continue till 11.30 p.m. when it is hoped that it will finish before that time.

Mr. Cunningham: I am not doing that. The matter to which I was referring is one of considerable historical importance, namely, the control of the Executive by the Legislature. I think that subject merits at least half a sentence, even if it is irrelevant to the debate. However, I welcome the Home Secretary's assurance that come November of this year, if the provisions are to be renewed substantially, it will be done by order.
Our duty tonight, as I see it, is to review what has happened, in so far as it is possible for us to know how things have been decided, and to consider what needs to be said so that next time when we deal with this kind of emergency situation the House may have the benefit of our views based on the experience of the past six months.
One thing that should be said—I do not think any hon. Member can be unaware of this, but there may be members of the public who are not aware of it—is that the relative peace in this country is not to be attributed to this Act. It is to be attributed to things which have nothing whatsoever to do with the Act. The Act may have helped, but it certainly has not brought about the cease-fire, whether in this country or elsewhere.
When the subject was discussed last November, I asked that certain more practical measures for controlling the activities of the IRA should be considered. I had in mind particularly the regulations applying to the control of explosives. I hope that in the last six months this subject has been considered, because my impression is that it is still too easy for anyone to get hold of explosives, whether in this country or in Northern Ireland, and, while accepting that many common substances can be used as explosives, it is important that we have assurances that whatever can be done to limit access to gelignite and other substances has been done, or that there are good reasons for its not being done.
Given the Government's desire to renew the provisions by order rather than by Bill, there nevertheless are three provisions in the Act which could have been dropped. The first is Section 1(1)(a), which makes it an offence merely to belong to the IRA. The Secretary of State has said that no one has been prosecuted for that offence, of merely belonging. I think we all recognise the difficulty of proving belonging to, as against support for, the IRA. It is pretty well impossible to prove that offence, unless one is prepared to adopt the procedures which Dublin has adopted of allowing a police officer to state it as his belief that a person belongs to the IRA, and then for the court to accept that as sufficient proof. I hope that never comes

about in this country. If it is not to come about, it seems to me completely superfluous to make it an offence merely to belong to the IRA. Therefore, I would have preferred Section 1(1)(a) to be dropped.
There has been reference to Section 2 of the Act which makes it an offence to wear uniform or dress or to carry anything else indicating membership of a proscribed organisation. If there is something wrong with the Public Order Act, as the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) suggested, if it is possible that berets and dark glasses might not be held by a court to constitute a uniform, obviously we should improve the Public Order Act. We should not let something stay on the statute book if it is subject to that imperfection.
We should not substitute—or rather supplement—such an unsatisfactory provision with another one making the penalty for the second one four times as great as the penalty for the first one. It is a messy way of going about legislation, to say the least.
The words in Section 2 of the Act are extreme. Let us recognise that. They are the sort of words which were adopted in the emergency legislation of the illegal régime in Rhodesia, which was roundly condemned by all liberal-minded people in this country. I hope they can be dropped.
The third provision which should have been dropped is that contained in the schedule to the Act, permitting a police officer in certain circumstances to issue his own search warrant. The Secretary of State gave a number of useful figures in his opening speech. Those figures related to the main provisions of the Act. I think it will be useful if, in his winding-up speech, he is able to state the number of times on which a police officer has issued his own search warrant under the powers conferred in paragraph 5(4) of the schedule. That provision, although not unprecedented in our law, is one which ought to be adopted only with the greatest reluctance. That, too, could have been dropped without the necessity of passing new legislation.
Had those three provisions or any others been dropped under the powers conferred by Section 12 of the Act, and


had they been found to be necessary in the course of the summer, when Parliament was not sitting, then under Section 12(2)(c) they could have been restored to full effect. There was, therefore, a safety net, had the dropping of the provisions been found to be regrettable.
There are some aspects of the administration of the system under the Act about which we ought to have assurances. The system of appeals against exclusion orders, the reference of such quasi-appeals to the advisers, ought to be made as judicial as possible in the atmosphere and procedures, even if they are not judicial in the proper sense of the word. It seems to me that there are three ways in which this quasi-judicial quality could be introduced. The first would be in the personality of the advisers. I think that, on the whole, without casting any aspersions upon the two people who have acted as advisers, it is better if the advisers are or have been High Court judges, whose minds—I was going to say are bent—lean towards the judicial safeguards.
Secondly, wherever possible, without damaging security—and that is quite a qualification—reasons for decisions taken should not only be given to the victim but should be given publicly, and if it is decided that grounds of security prohibit the giving of reasons it should be stated that security prohibits the giving of reasons. This is a sort of administrative safeguard to prevent the gradual erosion of liberties.
Thirdly, the atmosphere in which these quasi-appeals are held ought so far as possible to be judicial. That is to say, the formality of the room in which the interviews take place ought to come as close to the formality of a court of law as circumstances permit.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am sorry to refer back to the second of the hon. Gentleman's points. Why is he so anxious not only that the reasons should be given to the persons affected but should also be made public, in the light of the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara)? This poses the danger that the person upon whom an order is served is subject to public criticism for actions which are not the subject of conviction in a court of law. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept

that it might not be wise to make it public?

Mr. Cunningham: Yes, I accept that. I was speaking in a rather confused way. If the reasons are given to the victim or defendant, he will be free—he must be free—to make those reasons public if he wishes, but I certainly agree that they ought not to be made public if he does not wish them to be. Thus, the position would be the same, in effect, as in any other judicial case, except for the nature of the hearing and the non-announcement of reasons in a public place, as is done in court.
The second administrative way in which the system could be better operated, it seems to me, lies in the application of the Judges' Rules to those who are held for the extra five days. The Judges' Rules ought to have been put in statutory form long ago, and if the House was doing its job properly that would have been done, but at least we know that they are being reviewed at long last by the Home Office, so one presumes that they will be put into statutory form at some time.
As I understand it, it would be possible now under the Judges' Rules to use the loophole which permits the police to deny access to a solicitor if they fear that that access would impede their investigations. I do not consider that the police ought to be allowed to use that provision in respect of the extra five days. Let them use it in respect of the 48 hours, sparingly — it would be handy to know how often it is used in respect of the first 48 hours, whether in connection with IRA suspects or anyone else—but I think it not reasonable that they should be able to argue that access to a lawyer during the extra five days would impede their investigations.
I do not know whether the police have ever denied access to a lawyer for a period extending beyond the 48 hours, but I think that guidance should go from the Home Office to chiefs of police to say that the Home Secretary considers that they ought not to invoke that provision in respect of the five days.
One of the reasons why we ought to be ultra careful about renewing these provisions and about the detail of them is that, the British being what they are,


we tend to deal with an emergency, get it past us, put the legislation on the shelf, and then, when the next emergency comes along, pull it down, dust it off, and reintroduce it. We all remember what was said last November, making perfectly clear that the legislation we are now renewing was subject to that disadvantage. It was in many respects legislation which had been used before, either in this country in 1939 or in Northern Ireland for what were thought to be roughly comparable conditions.
That is just about bearable when we have an emergency situation to face, but after six months it is not good enough. It is important, therefore, whether these provisions are to be renewed in November or not, that they be reviewed in substance to see whether they were necessary and whether they were apt for their purpose, so that when, in five or 10 years, we face—God forbid—a militant Scottish Nationalist movement or something of that kind, we do not then introduce exactly the same sort of provisions simply because we have nothing else prepared and handy.
The whole of the United Kingdom needs an emergency code ready in skeleton to be introduced if it is ever necessary, and with such safeguards as in the calmness of a non-emergency situation we can put into that emergency code. I hope, therefore, not only that Whitehall will conduct its review of the working of these provisions but that the House of Commons will decide that it is a matter of sufficient importance for a Select Committee to be set up to look back upon—not in order to have access to the security reasons for doing this or that—but to consider whether these provisions are the proper way to deal with an emergency situation of the kind which we faced last November.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I prefer short speeches and short debates, but, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said, we ought to reorganise ourselves and arrange our business better. For a start, we might have less legislation, but, apart from that, one cannot help thinking on this occasion that a debate touching the

protection of life, limb and property in Great Britain and also the abridgement of the liberty of the subject ought to be taken very seriously by all hon. Members.
It was an insult to our people that terrorist bodies engaged in warfare against our troops should parade in our streets and rattle collection boxes in our pubs and parks. The Home Secretary said as much. It was, moreover, unfair to the Republic of Ireland, where the IRA has been proscribed—the Republic of Ireland to which we look for co-operation against a common enemy. I have said this for years. It took a Labour Home Secretary to remove the affront.
I imagine that the Home Secretary will be grateful for the constructive points made by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I was interested, for example, in what he said about reinforcing the Public Order Act. That in itself is something of an arbitrary measure, however, and I am not altogether sure that there would be particular advantage in that direction.
There is one bond that unites us—a dislike of the necessity for these powers. When they are used mistakes can be made, just as mistakes were made over internment and detention in Northern Ireland. Innocent people may be harassed. For that reason I hope that the Home Secretary will pay careful regard to what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I imagine that all of us are glad that there has been no automatic renewal of the powers in this Act.
I shall be obliged if the Home Secretary will elucidate one passage in his speech. I understood him to say that the statistics which he gave the House were larger than might otherwise have been the case because after, for example, the murder of Police Constable Tibble the police were using powers to detain people under the Prevention of Terrorism Act instead of using their normal police powers. To the layman it would seem better that normal police powers should be used whenever possible, and I wonder what advice the Home Office gives to chief officers of police and what instructions chief officers of police are giving in this matter.
When the Act was rushed through all its stages at the end of November some


hon. Members told us that we were acting emotionally or even under the effect of panic. Now, however, we are examining the powers in what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury called a non-emergency situation. I am not quite sure that he is right about that, but at least we are doing it at a time when we have had some respite from the sort of outrages which oppressed our minds at that time, although they still afflict Northern Ireland. Some people, no doubt, will be inclined to say—I think that this was the burden of the remarks of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett)—"It is all Quiet now, is it not? Why make such a fuss and bother, and why extend these powers?" With that in mind, I think that the House will be grateful to the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), and also for what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said about the effect of the Acts upon the Irish community.
There was a time of ugly talk—I heard it myself—between the two communities hitherto living side by side peacefully and honestly and honourably in this land, but now, I believe, there is on the whole a better atmosphere between British and Irish in this island, and that is all to the good.
If there be anybody in the House who is tempted to say "It is all quiet now in this country, therefore, why should we need these powers in Great Britain?" let him heed the indication given by the Provisional IRA that, if it goes over again to full-scale operations against the United Kingdom and our people, it will not confine its activities to Ireland but will concentrate its attentions on Great Britain. It is difficult for those of us with no access to information to understand the effect of this measure and to know to what extent it has led to the present respite which we are now enjoying.
It is reasonable to suppose from what the Home Secretary said that the measure has proved useful. We wish to echo the right hon. Gentleman's gratitude for the efforts of the police and of other services which are undermanned and certainly not overpaid but which defend the Queen's peace which is ours, not without sacrifice.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I wish to take part in this debate

because one of my constituents and another person in Bristol whom I have known for many years have been served with exclusion orders. However, before coming to particular cases I wish to refer to Part I of the Act and to proscribed organisations.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had a good deal to say about proscribed organisations and about the Irish Republican Army. He stressed that nobody was issued with an exclusion order on political grounds. The two cases in Bristol with which I am familiar involve members of Clann na h'Eireann. I wrote to my right hon. Friend suggesting that he should make clear whether this organisation is or is not a proscribed organisation. There is a growing feeling in Bristol that the police will be picking up members of. Because of the extension of police powers it is believed that human frailty will lead the police to use those powers to the full and periodically to detain people. I am concerned at the fact that many politically naïve youngsters will find themselves involved in that organisation and might well find themselves being picked up and harassed by the police. However, the only response I received from the Secretary of State, through one of his colleagues, was to refer me to the schedule to the Act setting out the fact that only the IRA is a proscribed organisation.
When we discussed the legislation on an earlier occasion many of us were concerned about the effects of certain parts of it. Many of us believed—and I still believe—that the police force has more than enough power to deal with these situations. In Bristol people were taken into custody on similar kinds of charges prior to this legislation and use has been made of agents provocateurs acting on behalf of the police. People have been kept in custody following such action, and therefore I believe that the police already have adequate powers to deal with these situations.
I am, however, more concerned with Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Under Section 4 there is a right to make representations to the Secretary of State. Surely, an individual who has a right to make representations should be given some indication of the evidence against him. Certainly in the two cases with which I am


familiar in the Bristol area the individuals concerned were given no such indication.
It was earlier suggested that it would be wrong to make public any aspect of the evidence. I accept that as a fair point, but the argument applies equally to a solicitor acting for an individual. I was telephoned by a solicitor involved in the case whose plea was "I want to prepare a defence statement, but how can I do so when I am given no indication whatever of the evidence against my client?" My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was asked earlier in the debate whether he could ensure that individuals were given their legal right to be represented by a solicitor. What is the point in being represented by a solicitor if he cannot prepare a defence statement?

Mr. Whitehead: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, in a sense, the position is even worse for an accused man since, when he appears before his advisers, those advisers have not seen the police evidence? Therefore, their interrogation of the accused cannot lead to any indication whether or not he is innocent.

Mr. Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting observation. I was just about to deal with that stage in this farcical situation. I was informed that when the assessor, Lord Alport, went to see one of the individuals in Bristol, he asked "What do you want to talk about?" I also understand that Lord Alport had to admit that he had no idea whatever what the evidence against the man was. It looks as though they spent the time talking about Bristol Rovers or something akin to it. They spoke about how long the man had lived in Bristol and dealt with matters of that kind.
I emphasise that the individual is given no idea of the evidence against him, nor is his solicitor assisted in any way whatsoever. If even the assessors have no idea of the evidence, who has such evidence? Presumably only the police possess it. No doubt, the young woman who typed out the evidence knows about it, and there must be people in the Home Secretary's Department who have that knowledge, but the individual concerned, his solicitor and his Member of Parliament have no idea what that evidence is. They are frustrated in their activities and there is nothing one can do.
We all protest when this kind of procedure, which is contrary to all the tenets of natural justice, is practised in other countries. It is completely unacceptable, and I will not be voting for this extension. Given the opportunity, I will vote against it.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The House will have listened with interest and concern to the account by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) of his personal experiences in dealing with those affected by exclusion orders. It is one of the great features of this House that when reviewing legislation hon. Members can often do so on the basis of personal experience of its impact on their constituents. I hope that the Government will take particularly into account the kind of difficulties which the hon. Member described from experience and of which others of us have read.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) expressed the concern of many of us on the Second Reading of the Bill when he said:
The House is engaged on a difficult operation, that is, legislating in haste and under the immediate pressure of indignation on matters which touch the fundamental liberties of the subject; for both haste and anger are ill counsellors, especially when one is legislating for the rights of the subject."—[Official Report, 28th November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 667.]
It was, of course, in some haste—only eight days after the Birmingham bombings—that the House passed the Bill.
One thought which cannot be far from our minds is that such a Bill would not have been passed in different circumstances. That is bound to make us slow to accept the wholesale renewal of its provisions. If we had the Bill before us tonight, through our normal legislative procedures rather than by an order, would we pass it as it stands? In that light, we are bound to feel concerned about the order procedure being used to ensure its full renewal.
The only haste imposed on us tonight is imposed not by urgent response to the situation but by having only the order procedure to work in and the limited debate which that allows. The restrictions on our legislative judgment are not those of immediate and urgent need, but those of the take-it-or-leave it, all-or-nothing, nature of deciding something by


order. We welcome the Home Secretary's assurances that he would not seek to use such a procedure if he wanted to reintroduce substantial parts of the Bill after a further six months, but that welcome cannot blunt our feelings of concern that we should be going through this unsatisfactory procedure after six months.
Let us be clear about the case for serious reconsideration. Even in the face of the Provisional IRA cease-fire, it cannot be maintained that the "clear and present danger" has been removed. That is not the case. It may briefly be a less clear danger, but it would be a foolish man who supposed that the danger had been removed and who rested the case for fundamental review of this legislation on that premise. Violence could erupt at any time. Anyone who considers the Northern Ireland situation can see many circumstances in which that could happen.
No, the real reason for reconsidering the legislation is much firmer. It is that we must ask ourselves certain questions—two in particular. Does the experience of six months show that the powers given are all necessary and all effective in the detection and prevention of terrorism? Have the reservations expressed when we passed the Act about its effect on civil liberties proved justified? We have had six months' experience, and we should ask those questions in that light.
It is that, the opportunity for reconsideration after time, which makes it important that we give serious attention to these matters, rather than any supposition that the danger is no longer with us. It will take far more than my speech to answer those questions, but I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to use what has been said tonight as an assessment from a number of points of view of the answers to those questions—whether the powers have proved all to be necessary or effective and whether the reservations expressed have proved justified.
I will confine myself to the main areas in which concern has been shown—proscription, exclusion and detention. The fourth aspect of the legislation, the surveillance of movement, is one for which I accepted the need from the first, about which in some respects I share the reservations expressed by the right hon.

Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) and one which I would see no reason for us to abandon at this juncture.
Let us consider, first, proscription. This element of the Act more than any other was seen even at the time as more of moral and psychological significance than of serious purposes in ending or preventing terrorism. The Home Secretary said at the time:
I have never claimed, and do not claim now that, proscription of the IRA will of itself reduce terrorist outrages. But the public should no longer have to endure the affront of public demonstrations in support of that body."—(Official Report, 28th November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 636.]
I supported that contention at the time—the need to remove that affront to the public—but, particularly after a period of Provisional IRA cease-fire, it seems to apply with at least equal force to some other bodies engaged in violent terrorist activities, to certain Protestant armed groups such as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) tried to introduce into the legislation in the first place—like the Ulster Freedom Fighters—and possibly to the Irish Republican Socialist Party. Other groups are involved in terrorism on the Northern Ireland side of the water.
As we have often reminded ourselves, the main provisions of the Bill are concerned with the prevention of terrorism in Great Britain and not with the regulation of the situation in Northern Ireland. However, this part of the Bill is not really concerned with the regulation of terrorism in any but a minor respect. It is concerned with an affront and an outrage which is represented by public support for and belonging to organisations engaged in violence. Outrage cannot be confined to one side of the water. Some of the arguments that hon. Members have adduced for retaining the proscription on the IRA have related to the continuance of acts of violence in Northern Ireland and not to continued acts of violence in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary has said several times in those words and in others that the Act must be seen to operate in this respect even-handedly. He said that if necessary — and he thought it might well be necessary—orders would be used to add to the list of proscribed organisations. The effect of the continuance of the IRA's


proscription in the absence of any addition to that does not make the Act appear even-handed in its attitude to terrorism.
The second area of concern is that of exclusion. Here we encounter the most serious difficulties of the Act. Exclusion has several faces. In one sense it can be seen as a substitute for deportation to the Irish Republic of people who, if our relations with the Irish Republic were on a different basis, would be the subject of the normal type of citizenship and under alien law would be deported in certain conditions. It can be seen as a substitute for detention for United Kingdom citizens not resident in Northern Ireland but supposed to be concerned with the same activities. For those who are actually resident in Northern Ireland it appears to be unwanted, at least in the opinion of the Secretary of State, who has been conspicuous by his lack of use of the powers conferred by the Act. The House is bound to respect his judgment and his feelings that the other powers at his disposal are the ones we should be using and not those which were conferred by the Act.
However, the following specific reservations arise. In the first place it has seemed, in certain cases, that exclusion has been used inappropriately, and in one case there seem to be indications that the departments on either side of the water were falling over each other and that the activities for the containment or prevention of terrorism in Northern Ireland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom were getting at cross-purposes. I refer to the case of Tony Devine, who was sent back to Northern Ireland after having been released from detention, when he had been encouraged to proceed to a job outside Northern Ireland. Circumstances of this kind give us cause for concern that in seeking to pursue the interests of the containment of terrorism in the rest of the United Kingdom we defeat the purposes of our activities in Northern Ireland.
There has been an apparent failure to distinguish between various organisations and those involved in them, between the Provisionals and the Officials, between the Officials and Clann na h'Eireann. I take the point made by the Home Secretary that membership of any of these organisations is in no sense an excusal or a source

of exemption from the operations of the Act.
One makes inquiries about the way in which the distinctions have been recognised in order to establish whether the police have been using the powers to deal with those who were the cause of difficulties and the potential source of terrorism.
There is the difficulty that people do not seem to have been informed in all cases of their right to make representation against exclusion. The Home Secretary has been made aware of a number of instances in which this seems to have happened, and certainly after the event, rightly or wrongly, people have claimed that they were misled by the police or that they were not given to understand that it would be in their interests to exercise their right to make representation.
Hon. Members have already referred to the inability of the defendant or his solicitor to have any inkling of the case they are seeking to refute. That is bound to cause concern. There is the position of the adviser, again something about which many hon. Members had reservations when we first dealt with the legislation. What is his rôle, particularly if he does not, as a matter of policy, read the police evidence? Fears on this score seem well justified. The Home Secretary made it clear then, as he has now, that the advisers are not carrying out a judicial procedure. However, he must give an indication, perhaps even to the advisers themselves, of what it is they are supposed to be doing. Are they simply trying to establish by a friendly conversation that the man with whom they are dealing does not seem to be the sort of chap who would be involved in terrorism? That is, honestly, what the procedure used so far seems to amount to—an attempt to ask an individual person to establish by mere conversation what sort of assessment he makes of a man. It is hard to see what that is meant to amount to and what kind of procedure we have legislated into effect.
Many of us realised that in doing something about which we had very strong reservations we were not creating anything like a court of appeal, but we did expect, on the Home Secretary's assurances, that we would get a reasonably sound procedure by which the case against an individual could be re-examined by someone


competent to do so and equipped to do so. That does not seem to have happened.
The Home Secretary may recall that on Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) drew his attention to the working of the aliens tribunal under Lord Birkett during the war. There is no doubt that there is a body of precedent to go on which, although it would not satisfy us as to being totally satisfactory judicial procedure, would at least provide a better precedent for the way in which this legislation ought to be working than what we have seen so far.
Another problem that has arisen has been the lack of help and guidance for the families of those affected by exclusion—who are not men convicted of any crime but against whom certain suspicions are held, perhaps on good grounds. This concern was raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South in Committee. I believe that his fears have been shown to be justified in certain cases, particularly in relation to those whose orders have subsequently been revoked but who have been held for considerable periods while the procedures were gone through and have not had satisfactory provision made for their families, whom they have not been allowed to see.
On the whole issue of exclusion, we are bound to ask the Home Secretary what his long-term intentions are when the Act expires, as it is bound eventually to do. The Home Secretary put his finger on the crucial point when he said that if we allowed the provisions to lapse not only could we no longer exclude people but we would allow to return all those whom we have already excluded. We shall have to face this problem some time. We need to be clearer about how the Home Secretary sees this working in the future. Sooner or later—and many of us hope it is sooner—we shall be able to dispense with this legislation. However, the fact remains that a number of people will thereby have restored to them the right to return to the United Kingdom or that part of it from which they were excluded. One wonders whether we are contemplating the return of a group of men so dangerous that we shall need to seek greater powers to exclude them, or whether the reality is more prosaic than that.
I come to the issue of detention. This is the most used of the provisions of the Act, but used mainly to carry out a wide exercise of interrogation from which extraordinarily few charges emerged. The Home Secretary has helpfully broken down the figures so as to distinguish shorter 48-hour detention, against which fewer objections can be raised, and the full seven-day detention. These powers were, clearly, used by the police to establish information—perhaps it was information they needed—but it was on a large scale and with the outcome of only a limited number of charges.
Again, confusion seems to be arising about who ought to be questioned and picked up under this legislation. Some concern is clearly felt about the longer periods for which people had been kept — longer than is required to do the actual questioning. What is particularly disturbing is the number of instances of those who were questioned within the first 48 hours and left in detention for a further period of several days in which no more questioning took place.
All these problems are made worse by the lack of any independent element in the complaints procedure against the police, and when we pressed during the Committee stage of the Bill for the inclusion of a provision for independent complaints procedures, the Home Secretary said that he needed a few more months in which to get the legislation into shape. That legislation is still not before us. We know full well that he is using his best endeavours to carry out the necessary consultations, but that does not remove the difficulty or the reservations, and it makes some of us feel that we were right to press for the inclusion of a specific provision in this legislation, and that we are right to regret its continued absence from the statute book. It is also holding up the implementation of other Gardiner recommendations in relation to police complaints machinery in Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, we are bound to ask by how much these powers have added to the effectiveness of the forces of law and order to an extent which justifies their wholesale continuance, and whether the containment of violence which has occurred on this side of the water has been the result of the exercise of these


powers or rather of changes in the situation in Northern Ireland, and equally—and I think more important—effective use by the police of powers which were already available to them, or the equivalent of which were available to them.
It would be a very sad day indeed for this House if we did not reflect on the experience of six months, and ask ourselves very seriously whether we need to retain the powers here before us. The word "premature" has been used by several hon. Members but, even on the most optimistic estimate, the risk that Northern Ireland violence could continue to spill over into the rest of the United Kingdom will be with us for many years to come. Even on the most successful outcome of the discussions now taking place, whatever the policy pursued—whether it is the policy I have advocated or that advocated by other hon. Members—we ought all to concede that someone in Northern Ireland will be dissatisfied, and someone will continue to want to use violence. That risk will be with us for a long time, even if on a smaller scale than at present. We shall always be able to say that it might be dangerous to remove from the statute book the powers we granted to ourselves so rapidly in November last year. I do not think we can decide it on that basis, and it is for that reason that I am convinced that the House must ask itself: are these powers justified? Are they what we need? The assurance of the Home Secretary that we shall not be presented with these powers in the same form in six months' time, and will be given the full legislative opportunity to deal with them, goes some way to meet my reservations, but I am far from happy at these proceedings.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Bryan Gould: I start from the position of one who accepts, however reluctantly, that if our society is subjected to a sustained and violent attack we must be able to protect ourselves, even at the cost of some diminution in civil rights. But that argument for emergency measures carries force and can be accepted only in so far as those measures can be seen to be necessary in order to deal with that attack and also seen to be effective in achieving that purpose. Neither of these conditions is met with in this Act. The

grounds on which men are excluded are not disclosed. It is therefore impossible to tell what sort of men are being excluded and for what sort of behaviour. It is therefore equally impossible to reach any judgment on the effect and effectiveness of the Act in relation to its stated purpose.
I know that there is a powerful security argument, but even that argument is abrogated by the secrecy it engenders. It is itself made immune from scrutiny and from critical judgment, and we are therefore forced to rely not on evidence but on assurances provided for us by members of the Government.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that I mean no disrespect when I say that the acceptance of such assurances on that sort of basis cannot make any of us confident that we are acting in the best way to safeguard the freedoms of our constituents. This is a situation with which no self-respecting Member of this House can live for very long. If we can form no judgment of the efficacy of the Act, many of us are, unfortunately, all too able to judge other consequences of the Act in other directions.
Southampton, my own constituency, has been particularly unfortunate in this respect. Many of us have had constituents deprived of their liberty on undisclosed grounds, with a right to make representations which is severely circumscribed by the fact that they are not allowed to know the evidence against them. On any view, that must be regarded as a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. That is a violation which could be justified only by the belief that these men are terrorists. That is an assertion which I do not dispute, because I do not have any evidence on which to dispute it; nor can I confirm it, because, again, there is no evidence.
The effect of these provisions on the men's families is also all too apparent. As I argued in the Committee stage of the debate in November, their effect has been and will be to break up many well-established families in this country, families which have been living here for a decade or more, with children born and educated in this country. Those families are made fatherless and husbandless by these measures in situations which are


much more severe in some respects than if the men had been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment after proper conviction for a normal and regular offence. At least there would then have been the possibility of prison visits for their families. But that possibility is not open to these families. They are completely disrupted by these provisions. Many of my constituents have been to see me with complaints about the procedures followed by the prison authorities and the police against the men so cruelly taken from them.
We are told that all this is justified because these men are terrorists. The families are assumed to be innocent, but because we are told, again without evidence or the possibility of judging this assertion, that the men are terrorists, the families must suffer.
A Member whose constituents are affected in this way is placed in an almost impossible dilemma. Is he to accept the word of the executive, or does he assume that his constituents are innocent until the contrary is proved and therefore offer them all the help and protection of which he is capable? For me there can be no choice; there is no dilemma. Therefore, unless I am shown good evidence to the contrary, I shall take the course of offering my constituents what help I can. I was able to obtain the release of a person served with an exclusion order who came to me for help on the ground that he had been resident in this country for 20 years.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Did not my hon. Friend find it strange that here was an individual, presumably against whom there was evidence of involvement or likely involvement in terrorism, who was released when, with my hon. Friend's help, it was shown that he had not been in this country for the requisite period?

Mr. Gould: I did find it strange although I am glad to say that the argument that the exclusion order could not be made—whatever other grounds there were—because the jurisdiction was lacking, found favour with the Home Office, and therefore the order was revoked. However, my hon. Friend is right.
There remains the uneasy suspicion, in the case of other constituents of mine

who have been excluded that had it not been for the provocation of police action in the Irish community in Southampton, occasioned by the shooting in Southampton just before Christmas, many men might still be living with their families and working in Southampton.
I do not underestimate some of the difficulties which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary faces, but many of them—such as the difficulty about men making representations, difficulties for the advisers in making their judgments, difficulties for the families and friends of the men concerned in deciding what action they should take, and, not least, difficulties for hon. Members in evaluating the Act and its effect—could be avoided if there were more disclosure of the () rounds on which men are to be excluded.
I do not underestimate the security argument, although one must take it on trust, but my right hon. Friend should be urged, and I urge him, to make such disclosure as he finds possible, subject to whatever safeguards he may think necessary so that when disclosure is made the damage to civil liberties is reduced to the minimum and we are able to make a proper judgment of this exceptional measure.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: Several hon. Members on the Government side of the House have rightly raised the problems of constituents who have been caught by the Act. Some have spoken as though we were living in normal times. Unfortunately, we are not. To experience terrible terrorist attacks, as we have done in this country in the past two or three years, cannot by the wildest stretch of the imagination be called normal. Therefore, when we talk about the deprivation of liberty, we must remember that this is not a normal situation, in which normal rules can operate.
We are being asked to continue, by order, the provisions of the Act, and those who have criticised the procedure should bear in mind that if we were to deal with the matter today in the form of a new Bill, providing us with a proper discussion of the details, that legislation would automaticaly become more permanent. By handling the matter under


the device of an order we shall be provided with the opportunity, in six months' time, if it is necessary, to renew the provisions and then to debate the matter in detail. Until then the legislation does not become permanent.
We are now examining these facts in a calm atmosphere—much calmer than existed at the end of last year. I do not believe those who now seek to convince us that the dangerous situation has passed and that we may not have to face exactly the same problems which originally gave rise to the Act. The House has not had an opportunity to debate the security situation in Northern Ireland, particularly the cease-fire and its implications. The great fear is that the ceasefire has been used by the IRA as a cover beneath which to reorganise, re-equip and increase in strength in order to launch yet another attack in Northern Ireland and, as it has said, if the cease-fire finally breaks down, on the citizens of this country. All these things must be borne in mind.
When this measure was first introduced last November I said that such a measure should have been introduced long before. It was introduced not necessarily because of the affront caused to the British people by the IRA marching here and freely collecting money; its introduction was not so much to help the police either, but, in the circumstances following the Birmingham outrage, to protect the Irish population in this country. There was a very difficult balance to strike here, and the Home Secretary had to know the right moment to introduce the measure in order to provide this protection. The situation could have deteriorated and become far uglier.
This evening the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the incident we had suffered here since the Bill was enacted and since the cease-fire came into effect the tragic shooting of PC Tibble. Has the Home Secretary any further information on the question whether these investigations have been completed? What information is now available to the public? Is it known whether PC Tibble's assailant escaped from the country, and, if so, by what means? Is he supposed to be in the Republic? Has he been arrested in the

Republic, or have any arrests been made as a direct result of this incident? If there could be some enlightenment on the matter it would be of great public interest.
Proscription under the Act has been criticised by several hon. Members. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) pointed out that there was a duty on us to take measures which are in accord with measures being taken in Northern Ireland and in the Republic. During a visit to the Republic a few months ago a delegation of which I was a member came under considerable criticism for the lack of action being taken in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. The effect of proscription by the Act is that certain organisations are now proscribed in the Republic, Northern Ireland and this country—indeed, the whole of the British Isles. In this connection it was absolutely right, even though some hon. Members have pointed out that it cannot be fully effective.
Perhaps the Home Secretary will deal with another aspect of liaison with the Republic and the progress of the Criminal Justice Bill, which we understand was dealt with in another place before Easter but of which we have seen no sign in this House. When will that Bill take another step forward?
There has already been reference to travel restrictions and travel documents. I believe that the most simple type of travel document that could be introduced is the disembarkation card for passengers to fill up when they are on board an aircraft. If such documentation is necessary, that is a simple way of dealing with the matter.
It is now appropriate to pay tribute to the police forces in this country. We often pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and congratulate it on the way it is dealing with the terrible problems over there, but this is the time for us to congratulate our own police forces, especially the police forces in the Metropolis, for the very different and possibly even greater burdens which they have to bear. I understand that in the Metropolis it is normal for a police officer to get only one weekend in eight free from duties. This places a very heavy burden


on the police and their families. We should take this opportunity to congratulate them for their skill and moderation in overseeing the provisions of the Bill which they have to operate.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It is not my intention to speak for long on this order which, I regret, will have to be passed again this evening. However, I should like to make a few observations about it and its operation. I am one of the few hon. Members who have carefully monitored the working of the Act by monthly Questions since it was passed.
First, the Act has by no means realised the worst fears of the people who were afraid of it when it was originally passed. I say that not because of any particular virtue which happens to exist within the legislation itself, but because of the way in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has supervised and been scrupulous about the operation of the Act. It could be an instrument for tyranny, but it has not been because of the way that my right hon. Friend has operated it.
Secondly, some of my hon. Friends on the Labour benches think that if we have an adequate system of appeal against the police or their wrongful handling of cases, that in some way will help or strengthen the Act, if it were necessary to reintroduce it in the future. I regret to say that that is not the case. It is true that we could examine whether the police were right to make requests for an extension of time for keeping a person in detention for an extra five days. It is true that we could look at the way they exercise supervision at the points of entry into and exit from this country. However, the real crux and the real power within the Act lies in the executive power of the Home Secretary. Whilst there is this executive power, there can be no control of the exercise of that power by any judicial or quasi-judicial system. If it is left to the Minister's discretion, that is it.
I say to hon. Members who have not always followed events in Northern Ireland, particularly the operation of internment or detention, that an executive power of this nature cannot be controlled, because ultimately there is vested a discretion in the executive which cannot

properly be challenged. In dealing with executive detention of one form or another, we have tried Mr. Brown's appeal under the original Special Powers Act, which was thrown out of the window, the system of commissioners set up by the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw), and a similar system under my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. All those systems have failed, because the executive felt at some point that it could not release the full information upon which its acts were to be judged.

Mr. Frank Hooley: My hon. Friend is on a good point, but does he accept that if an effective appeal procedure exists, even though the final decision rests with the executive, the existence of that procedure has an effect, not on the cases that are brought but on the cases that are never brought?

Mr. McNamara: I regret that that is just not so. Look at what has happened in Northern Ireland over the past four or five years. It does not work like that, because there comes a time when, no matter to whom the appeal is made—be he a judge or recorder or ex-diplomat or an ex-politician of highest standing—he may not know what the information is, nor judge the quality of the information, on which the security forces acted. One can understand that. The security forces do not reveal their sources. All this is evidenced in the situation in Northern Ireland.
We are left with the eternal dilemma of any liberal democracy. At what point does it say that in the interests of the whole of a society it may be necessary to exclude people from the country or to intern them without trial and without the evidence being produced? That is why I intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he spoke about various offences with which people may be alleged to have been associated.
That my right hon. Friend should say "As an executive action, I have decided that this person shall be excluded, because I do not think that it is safe for this country for him to be here is one thing. It is another thing for it to be possible to link the person with definite incident, as


one can, from the evidence of time and situation. As I have pointed out in previous debates, when releases have been suggested and people have said "These people may have been involved in a particular crime", and we can link the whole thing, we are putting a person on trial in the House and convicting him without his having seen the evidence against him. Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friend, as I have urged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that if we do not see the evidence against individuals there must be no smear. There must be just a statement of the fact that they are excluded.
We come to the crunch of the problem: how do we seek to defend the individual in our society? Some hon. Friends see the answer in a police appeals procedure. Some see it in another form of administrative procedure. I do not think that it exists in either of those procedures, important as they might perhaps be. On occasions they might be helpful, although I am not certain about that from what has happened in Northern Ireland.
The main defence is the House, this country and public opinion. It is the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) and Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) can make representations. That procedure is not always successful but from my experience of watching events in Northern Ireland it is far better to have a member of the executive answerable to this House for what he has done than to have a bastard, quasi-judical system which seeks to give a veneer of respectability and objectivity to executive action and then for the executive who controls the power to seek to wipe his hands of it. That comes out most clearly in the Gardiner Committee's Report.
Some of the points of detail raised by my hon. Friends are correct. My hon. Friends the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) and Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) have continuously raised the important matter of being able to question the police on the nature of their conduct of particular happenings.

Mr. Whitehead: We have constantly urged on the House that relations

between the police and the minority community must be improved by the existence of a complaints procedure, which I accept can take effect only in cases in which executive power has not been used and the man who has been released complains about his treatment whilst under detention.

Mr. McNamara: I am coming to that point. There should be written into our legislation the right of a person to seek a solicitor after he has been detained for two days. That is fundamental to protect both the individual and the police from accusations that can be made about what has happened. Where a person has been taken—as people were taken after the shooting of PC Tibble—it is sometimes impossible to trace where he is being detained at any time. A veil of secrecy descends over the whole operation, perhaps for security reasons or perhaps because they think that a thousand well-armed Provisional IRA members will go storming down the streets to the Cannon Street police station. An atmosphere of secrecy is created. There is a feeling that nobody cares and that the police are not answerable to anyone, least of all to the people and their elected representatives. In the O'Rourke case people were chasing round to find out where the detainees were. That is an indefensible situation.

Mr. Mather: Does it not occur to the hon. Gentleman that people outside the House may find his remarks rather curious, because this was a brutal, callous and indiscriminate murder of a police officer? When that sort of action occurs people are bound to suffer inconvenience.

Mr. McNamara: I accept that it was brutal, callous and inhuman and that it did no good to the cause of those who carried it out. It did no good to community relationships. In fact, it did no good to anybody. I accept that, but I happen to believe that the standards of our democracy are such, or should be such, that we should be able to say that even under the pressures and the emotions of a Birmingham or the shooting of a police officer we maintain our old standards. The interesting thing about O'Rourke was that no charge was brought. An exclusion order was served against him and he appealed and was released. He is now back at work.
I turn to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North was making about the position of minority communities. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can take some satisfaction in the working of the Act, in the fact that the numbers that have been stopped, questioned and detained have been so few. However, the House would be misleading itself if it believed that merely by the passing of the Act through this House and another place in the space of 48 hours we effectively stopped terrorism in this country. It would be foolish to take that view. There were other reasons. First, there was the truce. Secondly, there was the revulsion felt in the Irish community in this country at what had happened in Birmingham. Thirdly, there was the understanding by the Provisional IRA that there was a danger that their host Irish community would not accept them and that the host majority might hit back at the Irish minority community.
After a time this sort of legislation can be self-defeating. I regret that the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) is not present. It is one thing for this sort of legislation to be introduced for a short sharp period and then pushed out of the way, but it is another matter when it continues in existence and perhaps continues to be used. It then has the reverse effect of what was originally intended. It is then that the minority community, which is allegedly protected by this legislation by the majority or host community, tends to see its members being attacked and closes ranks to protect its own.
It is my impression that in the building trade and in other areas where there are a lot of immigrant Irish, and possibly first-generation Irish, there is a growing feeling — and it is reported to us by our trade unions—that this legislation is being used against them. Already in the cities there is being created within such communities a closing-in and a self-identification. There is the feeling "He is one of ours and we will protect him". That is the danger of all repressive legislation. That is why come November it will be of the utmost importance, if we cannot have the whole thing dropped and pushed aside, to examine in detail the little bits that we retain. In fact, some of those bits contain the root of the trouble and merit in

themselves the whole legislative procedure of First Reading, Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading.
We listened to the gloomy forebodings of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East as regards late summer. I regret that he is not present. I hope that his right hon. and hon. Friends will convey the message to him. In the hands of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) there is more power to bring happiness and contentment to Northern Ireland than even exists in this House. They should bear their responsibilities in mind.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The Home Secretary was very forthcoming in the information he gave the House about the operation of the Act and the number of persons to whom it had been applied. It would be interesting to have one further piece of information, namely, the length of residence in this country of those who have been served with exclusion orders. It would be useful to know whether those deported had, in the main, been here for several years or had only recently come to this country.
I have had no complaints from my constituency about the operation of the Act, or of individual cases. Nevertheless, I regard it as a serious potential danger to civil liberties in this country and I still believe that it was an Act passed in panic and in a manner unworthy of the House. The powers of the police in this country are excessive, and as long as the police continue to obstruct the creation of an impartial system of investigation of any alleged misdemeanours the suspicion will continue that their powers are sometimes abused. The Home Secretary, in what was perhaps a Freudian slip, talked about regularising the activities of the police in certain instances.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, I said that deliberately. I intended to say that. I noticed that my hon. Friend says that the powers of the police in this country are excessive. I believe that we should have careful regulation of the powers of the police in this country. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has in mind any country in which the powers of the police are less than they are in this country.


If so, perhaps he will tell us which country that is.

Mr. Hooley: I am sure that it would be out of order if I were to indulge in an exegesis of the powers of the police in this country as compared with the powers of the police in other countries. I say that the powers of the police in this country are excessive. We can indulge in an argument about that at other times.
The point on which I want to dwell is the question of the exclusion order. We should remind ourselves of the powers which this carries. It is an executive order. There is no trial, no hearing, no defence. A person subject to an exclusion order has no right to know the evidence on which the order was made, to have any formal or informal hearings, to make representations, or to know why the representations were unsuccessful.
At no time does either a person subject to an exclusion order or his solicitor learn of the nature of the police evidence, nor at any time is he charged. His solicitor is in an impossible position in trying to refute unknown allegations or make representations to the Home Secretary. He is not allowed to represent his client before the adviser appointed by the Home Secretary. Under this legislation we seem to have a situation which is more reminiscent of the situation in some story by Franz Kafka than what we might expect in Britain under normal conditions.
A question arises, which should be answered from the Front Bench, as to why only 13 appeals were made in 51 cases. In view of the consequence of the exclusion order, one would have thought that so many cases would have given rise to rather more appeals against the order.

Mr. McNamara: It may help my hon. Friend in pursuing this point if I tell him that I have learned from correspondence that I have had that the reason for the small number of appeals is the paucity of success of appeals against exclusion orders. People feel that it is better to go away to Ireland than to spend five or six weeks in Brixton Prison. This is what happened in O'Rourke's case.

Mr. Hooley: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that information. It has also been alleged that the police have discouraged persons from making appeals.

In the nature of the whole business it is impossible to determine whether this is a serious argument.
In the course of the very hurried debate we had throughout the night when this legislation was passed I and a great number of my hon. Friends pressed very hard for an effective system of appeal against these exclusion orders. In fact, I divided the House on this issue, and I believe it was the only issue during the whole night's debate on which a formal Division took place, although I am speaking from memory, and there may have been others.
I believe it is necessary that under this system a person should be given more time in which to appeal. He should have full opportunity to consult his own legal advisers on the question whether he should make an appeal, and the solicitor himself should appear before the advisers to the Home Secretary if necessary to present the case.
I do not altogether agree with the general argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) that a system of appeal, in effect—I shall not use the expression "whitewashes"—merely covers over the exercise of executive power. We are not talking about academic and theoretical systems; we are talking about the operation of an Act by people who are subject to all kinds of feelings and emotions in these matters, and I believe that if some safeguards are built into this kind of legislation it will have an effect on those who have the very difficult and disagreeable duty of making arrests and presenting evidence. They are less likely to wander beyond the bounds of what is reasonable if there is the knowledge that safeguards and appeal procedures are built in. For that and other reasons, I would have liked a much stronger system of appeal within this legislation.
A rather remarkable statement was made by my right hon. Friend that this legislation relates only to prevention and not to punishment. I find rather startling the suggestion that to uproot a man from a country in which he may have worked peaceably and without offence for several years and to transfer him to another part of the United Kingdom, leaving his wife and family without his support, is no form of punishment. It may not be a


punishment in the technical sense, but it is certainly a punishment for all practical purposes. It certainly inflicts very considerable hardship on the wife and children whom he is forced to abandon. As one of my hon. Friends said earlier, the position of the families of men who are served with exclusion orders and are required to leave their homes, their jobs and the place where they have been accustomed to live for many years, requires further investigation.
I welcome the pledge by my right hon. Friend that this legislation will not again be renewed in its present form by this parliamentary process—that if we feel that this kind of legislation is necessary at all there will be a proper process of debate in Second Reading, Committee and the rest, so that the House can build into any legislation which it feels may be necessary a more civilised and sensible system of appeal for those who may be the victims of our legislation.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: The House passed this temporary provisions legislation exactly a week after the Birmingham bomb incident. It was passed in a crowded House in a moment of high drama—which was very good for tension but very bad for legislation. Now, six months later, in a less crowded House, we are renewing that legislation. We are not amending it. We are relying very much on the assurances given to us about what will happen in November of this year.
It is fair to say that had this measure been introduced a week before the Birmingham bombings, the House would not have passed it. It is also true to say that my right hon. Friend would not have wished to introduce it. It is because of that, and because, to some degree, all of us who voted for this Bill on Second and Third Reading on the night of 28th-29th November acted under the pressure of those terrible events in Birmingham, that we have today given my right hon. Friend, once again, very much the benefit of the doubt—on his record, and on the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) said, this Act, which could be a measure for tyranny, has not worked out according to some of the forebodings which were expressed six months ago.
Nevertheless, there are several causes for serious concern not only about the way in which the legislation has operated but about the fact that we do not now have the piece of parallel legislation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred in the earlier debate and to which reference was made tonight by his colleague from Hull, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central.
I wish to make a point of substance about the complaints procedure and one or two general comments about the way in which the Act has operated and what it has done to some sections of the minority community in this country. In its leading article of 9th January this year, reviewing the Act which by then was on the statute book, The Guardian said:
If even one Irish person has been wrongly served with an exclusion order then civil liberties have been badly damaged by the new Act. And even if none has been wrongly served, civil liberties have still been eroded. No one can defend the Act from a civil liberties platform.
That proposition is unhappily true, and I imagine that my right hon. Friend would probably assent to it, for none of us likes this legislation, and we look for-forward to what he has to say further about the way in which it may be reviewed and replaced by new legislation in November.
Some of the case histories which have been put before us suggest that although Members of Parliament may act for their individual constituents in particularly bad cases, there is serious cause for concern. We all applaud the knowledge that in a situation where such a wide area of executive discretion operates, ultimately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central said, Members of Parliament are the last channel of appeal. My hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) and Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), in the McAllister case, I think it was, have shown what a Member of Parliament can do, perhaps acting against the temper of the time in a situation of high tension after the shooting of a policeman or something of that kind, in representing the interests of a constituent who may have been wrongfully detained. Neverthless, that is but the action of an individual Member of Parliament


attempting, without even knowing the nature of the charges levelled against his constituent, to do what he can by representations to the Secretary of State. He has more or less the same powers as a Member of Parliament would have in a situation of total war under Regulation 18B, when a man could be detained but ultimately the responsibility for that detention and its continuance remained with the Home Secretary, the Home Secretary being responsible for it to the House.
These men, of course, are not detained. They are sent abroad, and when they are sent abroad their families are left in circumstances of great distress, sometimes even destitution. To that extent, as hon. Members have said, it is worse than a short-term imprisonment or even of detention within this country.
Moreover, there are anomalies in the procedures. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has referred to the Devine case—the case of a man having been released from detention by the commissioners in Northern Ireland, coming to this country, and being promptly served with an exclusion order.
My right hon. Friend has been listening with care to the debate, and I hope that he will tell us how much co-ordination there is between the commissioners in Northern Ireland and either the office of the Secretary of State in this country or the advisers. Is there any? What is the rôle of the advisers in considering information which comes before them? Is it always true that they do not have before them at the time of an interview on appeal the information upon which the charge is based? This applies not just to the anomalous cases arising from the release of detainees in Northern Ireland and their coming to this country—of which, I believe, there have been only two—but to all the cases referred to in the debate, and it seems one of the strangest facets of the whole adviser principle.
According to a man recently detained under these procedures, who afterwards supplied some information to the National Council for Civil Liberties about the adviser's procedure for interrogation, this is what Lord Alport said to him when the interrogation began:

My name is Alport. I am one of the advisers appointed by the Home Secretary to give him advice as to whether an exclusion order should be maintained or revoked. This is not a court of law. This is not an interrogation by me. My object is to try and add to the background of the grounds for the representations that you have made against the exclusion order, so that I may be able to judge fairly to the best of my ability as to what advice I give to the Secretary of State. I have not seen the police evidence. I have not done so for two reasons. One is that I wanted to meet you and to ask questions in order to get from you certain information which may be helpful to me in making my decision. Secondly, I do not want to be placed in a position where I might ask you questions which might be of an incriminating nature.
If that is the preamble and basis on which these interviews are carried out, how is the adviser able to judge what the situation of an accused person is in English law? The normal practice in English law is to regard a person as innocent until evidence to the contrary is brought. However, in these cases the accused person is never confronted with that evidence. We accept that that may be a detestable but necessary part of the proceedings where State security is involved. Why is it that even those interviewing such a person have no information of charges? It seems a strange procedure for an adviser to have to face.

Mr. George Cunningham: Is it not particularly ironic that Lord Alport, as an individual, might be denied access to that security information because, as a former British diplomatic high commissioner, he would in normal circumstances have had access to MI5 or MI6 material?

Mr. Whitehead: I entirely agree with that point. It points even more to the anomaly of the situation.
I turn to the central point involving a case which I wish to draw to my right hon. Friend's attention. I refer to the independent complaints review procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central said that such a procedure would be a specious whitewash and would add a quasi-judicial procedure in a case which involves the responsibility of the Secretary of State. I hope I have not misrepresented by hon. Friend.

Mr. McNamara: I was distinguishing between the rôle of the police in the conduct of a case and arrest and


detention and the decision taken by the executive. I am not saying that the rôle of the police should not be the subject of scrutiny, but that appeals against executive decisions are generally ludicrous if the decision is found to be taken at the discretion of the executive. That has nothing to do with the rôle of the police.

Mr. Whitehead: I follow my hon. Friend's argument. It is the rôle of the police and how that rôle is regarded by the minority community to which we should address ourselves. That is what we feel will be influenced by the introduction of an independent complaints procedure.
It must be remembered that we had to use the medium of an amendment to the legislation on 28th November because that was the only way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central and I could introduce that degree of bargaining—if that is the right word—into our public discussion, in a highly charged atmosphere, and in that way bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
We are now dealing with "temporary provisions—and we must remember that the last temporary provisions on Northern Ireland lasted 10 years. We do not want to see these provisions amended, but we are suggesting that parallel legislation should be introduced implementing a pledge which has already been given to the House by my right hon. Friend. I refer to the introduction of a review procedure in respect of complaints against the police—particularly necessary in this situation because we now have a section of the community within the United Kingdom which is beginning to define itself as a body set apart by the police.
There are one or two cases which have been brought under the legislation and which give cause for concern. For example, there is the McAllister case—a case in which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test intervened to some purpose. There was also the case of the Irish teenager, Danny Wilson, who was arrested under these provisions not so long ago. It was alleged that while he was in the police station he was confronted in the middle of the night by plain-clothes policemen, who abused him

and threatened him. He was then allowed to sleep for an hour, after which different policemen came in and were very nice and offered him cigarettes. The procedure was repeated. It is what is known as the "Mutt and Jeff" technique of interrogation.
If that kind of thing is happening and a man is thereafter released because the detention order cannot be proved against him, he should have some recourse to an independent appeals procedure if he feels that he has been maltreated in custody. We perfectly accept that this will not help those who have been detained and against whom the Secretary of State finds the case proven and, therefore, orders an exclusion order to be made. But it is absolutely crucial in terms of the minority community and how they see the operation of the law in this country with the independent review procedure.

Mr. McNamara: I am sure that my hon. Friend did not intend the logic of what he has just said, that such a procedure would be useless for a person against whom an exclusion order has been enforced. It is equally right that the sort of methods that he has described should not be used against those people. It is the same thing that we are attacking.

Mr. Whitehead: I agree entirely, but a person against whom an exclusion order was enforced would have to wait until he came back within this jurisdiction to bring his appeal if he wished to do so. In the present situation, as my hon. Friend knows, under Section 49 of the Police Act, one's complaint cannot be investigated while the matter is still sub judice.
My right hon. Friend gave certain undertakings in the small hours of 29th November last during the Committee stage of the Bill. We had asked him rather closely about when he proposed to introduce an appeals complaints procedure. In answer to me, he said:
I cannot give my hon. Friend any guarantee that this legislation will come into operation during the lifetime of this Bill. I shall need a few more months to get the legislation into shape. I shall then be anxious to proceed with it, but it must go through this House in the proper way. My hon. Friend knows that there is great pressure on Government legislative time. But I shall not object if, after the few months which I need to get it ready, he and other hon. Members press me about when legislation will be forth-


coming."—[Official Report, 28th November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 893.]
We are pressing my right hon. Friend tonight. We have had those few months; we have had more than those few months. We have had rather a longer time than he informally told me last November he would need.
When I asked my right hon. Friend in a Written Question on Friday of last week when we could expect to see the appeals complaints procedure, he said that the consultations were still proceeding. I have again understood from him that those consultations were now completed, that we were waiting only for the Legislative Committee of the Cabinet to give approval for parliamentary time for this measure. My support for the continuation of these temporary provisions tonight for a further six months is very conditional on our being told in this debate by my right hon. Friend precisely when that appeals complaints procedure will be brought in.
I am saying this not merely because I want the procedure introduced as a general principle but because I honestly believe, against the background of the case histories which are now before us after six months of the operation of the Act, that it is necessary for the well-being of relations between the police and the minority community that this legislation should be on the statute book—not as an amendment to this Act but as a quite separate Act, and there for good—so that, if our civil liberties have been diminished in one particular, they shall have been increased and embellished in another That is absolutely crucial.

Mr. Mather: Has the hon. Gentleman held any consultation with the Police Federation about this complaints procedure? I understand that it is very unhappy about it and it will be very difficult to bring it into effect if that is the situation. It feels that it is continually under pressure and that this is yet another pressure being exerted upon it.

Mr. George Cunningham: What can you do with a man like that?

Mr. Whitehead: I do not think that that is the case. My consultations with the Police Federation were some years

ago when I introduced this proposal as a Private Member's Bill. I understand that my right hon. Friend completed his discussions with the Police Federation certainly before 30th July last year, which is when he announced his intention to introduce these proceedings. It is because that is now the best part of 10 months ago that we are asking him: where is the Bill and why have we not got it? Why can we not, for once, see an increase in civil liberties brought about by this House? We shall, of course, be told tonight by hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) that this measure is necessary and that it must stay on the statute book.
If there is no resumption of terrorism in this country, we shall be told that the Act is succeeding, though there may be other reasons for that. If there is a resumption of terrorism and if it is worse than it was at the time of the Birmingham bomb blasts, we may have the consolation—although it may be a terrible and dreadful consolation to have to say it—that the Act does not work and that if it is to remain on the statute book a more Draconian measure will have to be found.
We have to act on the hypothesis that terrorism will not be resumed in this country. If it is not, it is right to ask the Secretary of State to say when, within the parliamentary timetable, he can see a place for the introduction of a complaints procedure, not after November next but in this Session of Parliament. I should also like to ask my right hon. Friend what precise part of the temporary provisions which are before the House tonight he would intend to retain or amend by new legislation if there has been no increase in terrorism in this country in the intervening six months, as we all hope and pray.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), hope that there are no acts of terrorism in Britain over the next few months as a consequence of what may be a worsening political situation in Northern Ireland. However, should there be acts of terrorism as a consequence of an increasing conflict in Northern Ireland, the Act will not affect that issue one way or the other.
The Home Secretary could claim that there is little evidence for that view, but there is little evidence to support any claim that the Act has had any material effect on terrorism in Britain. As many hon. Members forecast when the Act was passed, the effect has been that certain people, even if only a few, have lost their liberty, possibly unjustly. That has been fairly well established.
The report which has been published by the National Council for Civil Liberties, which I doubt many Members have read but which I am sure the Home Secretary has read from start to finish, shows that aspects of the working of the Act are open to serious question. The cases of McAllister, Danny Ryan and O'Rourke illustrate that beyond any reasonable doubt.
I do not wish to spend the few brief minutes I have discussing how the Act has worked. I am more concerned about the situation which appertained before the Act was passed, the situation now and the situation in the future. As all hon. Members seem to agree—although some did not say so in November—the Act has been an erosion of civil liberties. [HON. MEMBERS: "We did say so."] I said that some hon. Members did not say so. We did not hear a great deal from Conservative Members about the way in which civil liberties should be protected, and this measure was reluctantly accepted. There seemed to be a message coming over in this direction that Conservative Members were only too pleased to have the opportunity, yet again, of strengthening the repressive measures that exist here with regard to Northern Ireland.
I said in November that the present situation existed in Northern Ireland because in England we have legislated on that situation in the past in a repressive manner. In regard to Northern Ireland we have acted as the colonial Power looking after a part of our empire. That is the history of Ireland. We have partitioned Ireland. Since then we have seen the majority use their position of power in order to deprive the minority of the place to which they are entitled in terms of civil liberties, housing, employment and everything else that goes therewith. That is the background. That was the back-

ground when we discussed the Act. Some of us took the view that it was wrong then. It seems that its renewal now is also wrong.
Lord Justice Scarman, for example, has rightly drawn attention to the fact that a Bill of Rights is required not only in respect of Northern Ireland, where it is long overdue, but in respect of England, too. In terms of our rights as individuals, over time a considerable erosion has taken place. While we claim continually to be a nation of free speech, and so on, there is much to be desired in legislation to protect the individual in the normal course of his way of living in British society.
Nearly a year ago we had a debate about the decline in respect for the law, yet we still have not introduced any laws that protect people against unfair exploitation in capitalist society. We are in the process of dealing with the Employment Protection Bill—a very valuable Bill. But I am beginning, as I am sure are many of my hon. Friends, to receive an increasing quantity of mail attacking that Bill. An employer wrote to me the other day saying that he was a chief executive of a large concern and that he hoped that I would support action to amend that Bill. Naturally, I wrote to ask him whether he had consulted his employees on the subject before writing to me—[Interruption.] I digress a little. However, we are still waiting for legislation of certain types to protect the individual within our society.
In the next few months I believe that in Britain there could be a tremendous increase in conflict arising from our continued membership of the Common Market, if that is to be. [Interruption.] This matter is highly relevant. Increases in unemployment could present us with a number of situations of confrontation. Unlike times past, trade unionists and others are no longer prepared to accept being thrown on the scrap-heap without taking militant action to protect themselves and their families. When they take that action there may be some in the Home Secretary's Department who consider aspects of this particular Act particularly useful in regard to preventing some of the demonstrations which may occur in such a situation.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Nonsense.

Mr. Thorne: It can be adequately illustrated that some of the people dealt with under this Act were not finally excluded from Britain because they were terrorists or could be deemed to be likely to be terrorists, but because, in the words of some of the people involved in those exclusion orders, they were considered to be "undesirable". The word "undesirable" has an interesting connotation. There are certain militant trade union leaders in Britain who are thought to be "undesirable".

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Anybody who is excluded under these orders is excluded by a personal order made by myself. As I have assured the House, there is no question of doing this unless I believe they have been or are likely to be involved in terrorism. Will the hon. Member therefore please withdraw his ludicrous statement?

Mr. Thorne: I cannot do that because I have already made reference to one such case in which you had signed an exclusion order which in my view was wrong. I refer specifically to the case of Danny Ryan. You signed an exclusion order—

Mr. Speaker: I did not really.

Mr. Thorne: The Home Secretary signed an exclusion order in the case of Danny Ryan on the basis to which he has just referred—that Danny Ryan was somebody who would be likely to be involved in acts of terrorism. That is a matter of the Home Secretary's judgment.

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Member not realise that exclusion orders can be applied to terrorism only in relation to Northern Ireland, and that that section of the Act cannot be used to apply to other kinds of undesirables?

Mr. Thorne: Rightly or wrongly, I happen to believe that Danny Ryan is not the sort of individual who would be involved or would be likely to be involved in acts of terrorism, yet the Home Secretary judges to the contrary. If he can do that in the case of Danny Ryan, he might do it in the case of Joan Maynard, and it seems to me that on that basis it is a matter for my concern.
In this House we are all concerned to protect civil rights, and I take the

view that this Act should never have been put on the statute book. It is a further erosion of civil liberties. It gives the police powers which are quite unnecessary in the circumstances, since the actions could have been taken to the police to prevent terrorism in just the way that this Act allows them to do. I take the view that this Act should not be renewed, and I urge hon. Members not to give it a renewal when a Division takes place later this evening.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Many of my hon. Friends have drawn the attention of the House this evening to the circumstances in which this legislation was originally passed.
One can quite well remember that it was in the wake of the Birmingham explosions. Just prior to that there had been the Guildford tragedy. Later there was the killing of a policeman in Southampton. One can very well understand the deep sense of tragedy, emotion and frustration which affected the people in these islands, not particularly in Britain but in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic. There was a deep sense of tragedy. One tried to relate this in the first case to the personal feelings of the members of the families involved, and then to their political representatives in this House.
At that time many of my hon. Friends in this House spoke to me privately, and I am not divulging a confidence. Moreover, these private discussions were not restricted to the Government side of the House but took place with many hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side. They said that they recognised that this was an erosion of civil liberties in Great Britain but they did not dare to oppose it because no one knew whether a bomb was to be exploded in Glasgow, Oldham—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the consideration of any Lords Amendments which may be received to the Air Travel Reserve Fund Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Stoddart.]

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM

Question again proposed.

Mr. Fitt: Many of my hon. Friends said that they recognised that this was a serious erosion of the fundamental liberties which had been enjoyed by the British people until this legislation was passed, but as elected representatives they recognised that in the highly emotional atmosphere which existed it would have been foolhardy of them to have gone into the Lobby against the Government. But even tonight there are many hon. Members, not exclusively on this side of the House, who have sincere and deeply held convictions in opposing this measure. I recognise that.
Earlier tonight I was in Belfast with some of my hon. Friends. I understand that the Home Secretary, in appealing to the House for extension of the legislation, referred to my opposition to the Bill last November. [Interruption.] Perhaps it was an hon. Member opposite who referred to my opposition at that time.
Someone sought to justify an extension of the legislation by saying that since it was introduced there had been no acts of terrorism in Britain. I do not accept that argument. The legislation has achieved absolutely nothing. If there have been no acts of violence in Britain, if there have been no pub bombings or explosions, if no one has lost his life as a result of an act of terrorism by the IRA, it is not because of this legislation. I suspect that it is because of some arrangement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Provisional IRA or Provisional Sinn Fein.
We have repeatedly said—and here I think I have the support of hon. Members opposite who represent Northern Ireland constituencies—that we do not know what arrangement has been made, what has led to the cease-fire, or what behind-thescenes deals have been made. As a representative who has lett Belfast today. I must question the bona fides of my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If there is a so-called cease-fire, if there is an arrangement which prevents people in Britain from being killed, if no lives have been lost and there have been no acts of terrorism by the Provisional

IRA, the cease-fire has signally failed because since its onset there have been many acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland and many innocent people have lost their lives. Those tragedies cannot be attributed to the violence perpetrated by the IRA, which is exclusively referred to in this legislation.
When the Act was passing through the House last November I asked—it was refused—that if the IRA was to be proscribed, other organisations, like the UDA and the UFF, which were involved in violence and which have since claimed responsibility for bombings and killings in Northern Ireland, should also be proscribed. I was supported in my plea by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). If we are to be honest in our endeavours to stamp out terrorism we should not limit those endeavours to one particular organisation. Yesterday a young boy of 17 was shot dead in County Down, in the constituency, I believe, of the right hon. Member for Down, South. This was allegedly because a policeman had been killed in Londonderry three or four days before. Whoever was responsible for killing the policeman and whoever was responsible for killing that innocent 17-year-old boy deserve to be condemned by every citizen in these islands.
If we are to condemn those who are engaged in terrorist activities we must condemn them all and not just one section. For some months the people of Northern Ireland have suspected that Ministers and Members in this House are prepared to ignore the acts of terrorism taking place in Northern Ireland so long as they do not affect their own constituencies in Great Britain. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, and if attempts are to be made to stamp out terrorism they should be made against all the illegal forces. I am referring specifically to claims which have been made over the past few months of responsibility for acts of violence by the Ulster Protestant Action Group, the UFF and the UVV, which was de-proscribed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I refer, too, to the claim by young militants this morning of responsibility for the killing of that innocent boy. After the UVV was de-proscribed it had no hesitation in claiming responsibility for


some of the most brutal and callous murders in Northern Ireland since the onset of the present troubles.
I opposed this legislation initially and I oppose it now. It represents a serious erosion of the rights and liberties of the people of the United Kingdom. I can remember very well—and I was in total agreement with the Home Secretary's reaction on this occasion—many hysterical voices being raised by Conservative Members, particularly hon. Ladies opposite, in an attempt to reintroduce capital punishment. They believed that if capital punishment were reinstated it would prevent acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Fortunately for this House and for the country, that move was rejected. However, if capital punishment would have been ineffective in preventing acts of terrorism, this legislation has been no less so. What has prevented acts of terrorism from taking place in Britain but allowed them to continue in Northern Ireland is whatever arrangement was entered into by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Provisional Sinn Fein or the Provisional IRA.
We must clearly define our attitude. What I find most objectionable about this legislation are the provisions concerning exclusion from Britain. This matter has already been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), who has been involved in cases which have taken place in Southampton. I have been involved with exactly the same type of cases which concerned people being excluded from Britain and brought back to Northern Ireland—indeed, to my constituency.
I am not saying that I know those people better than the Home Secretary, but at least I have met them. They have come to my home. I have seen the husbands, the wives and the children, but the Home Secretary did not have that advantage. I am not saying that everyone who was excluded from Britain under this legislation was completely innocent, but the people who came to my home completely convinced me that they were not involved in any acts of terrorism in this country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did not have the advantage of meeting them. He had to rely on police reports.
Initially the police were the people responsible for arresting such persons in Northern Ireland, Southampton or Guildford. I remember well the terrible tragedy of Guildford. Like all my constituents and the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and the Republic, I felt a wave of revulsion at what happened in Guildford and Birmingham.
I turn specifically to Guildford, where there was a wave of arrests. The police there seemed to be arresting everybody who spoke with an Irish accent or had an Irish address. I remember speaking to officials at the Home Office after representations had been made to me and telling them that they had arrested far too many people for the Guildford bombings. I hoped that they had got the right people. I told them that if those people were guilty they deserved the full penalty of the law, even if it meant life imprisonment. I would support such a sentence if those people were guilty of perpetrating such a tragedy. I said to the Home Office officials, and to others, that the police had been too indiscriminate and had arrested everyone in the area. I said that I believed essentially in the justice of British courts and that the cases would be thrown out.
That is exactly what happened. Many of those who were originally arrested for the Guildford bombings were incarcerated in prison. They were not allowed bail. When they were brought before the court, the police produced no evidence against them. They were arrested in at atmosphere of hysteria, which was quite understandable. However, the police forces of this country and the application of British justice cannot allow themselves to be whipped by hysteria. At all times the administration of justice and police forces in this country must act in the interests of the people.
The same thing has happened with exclusion orders. Many people have been excluded from this country although they had not engaged in acts of terrorism. What I am about to say may bring me the enmity of the House, but I say it without fear and regardless of what enmity I may bring upon myself. Policemen are policemen. Policemen are individuals. Policemen are human beings. They have made mistakes in the past. One can think of the mistakes made by


certain policemen, and one can become deeply involved in objections to the RUC, and so on. But I am relating my remarks particularly to the police force here in Britain.
We have many immigrant communities throughout this country. I believe that the immigrant communities in Britain have been afforded protection and sustenance that would not have been given to them in any other country in the world, in any circumstances. This country has absorbed its immigrants and is treating them as individuals and human beings. Irrespective of the attitudes expressed by many people, some of them in the House tonight, this country has been good and kind to its immigrants.
Within the immigrant communities—Pakistani, Indian, Greek Cypriot, Turkish Cypriot or Irish—there are some very good people and some who are not so good. Some of those who have been subjected to exclusion orders and transported back to Northern Ireland and the Republic have not been excluded because they were involved in terrorist organisations. They may have had criminal records in this country. They were people who had been brought before the courts for offences similar to those for which others—Englishmen, Scots and Welshmen — had been brought before the courts. The Act gave the police an opportunity, in certain counties and districts, to get rid of people who they did not particularly like. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says "No". The House either accepts my right hon. Friend's word or it accepts mine. I have no hesitation in saying that hon. Members will accept my right hon. Friend's word.
How do I prove what I say? I have been at the Home Office, and no doubt I shall be there again, many times. I do not have to believe what I hear in my own home as a constituency representative. I have sufficient intelligence to know when people are trying to tell me lies. If I believed, or had the slightest suspicion, that people were engaged in terrorist activities, I would not put their case on the Floor of the House, because I have opposed terrorism and will continue to do so whilst I am in political life.

Mr. John Dunlop: The whole trend of the hon. Gentleman's

argument and that of other Members on the Government benches seems to be that the complete repeal of the Act would in large measure solve the problem of terrorism. I feel that the hon. Gentleman will end by advocating that the Act should be expunged from the statute book, and that he will also advocate the restoration of the rights, privileges and liberties that have been eroded from the British public and the public of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fitt: It may be that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop), having gone to the inconvenience of coming here this afternoon, has established the fact of his presence by making such a ludicrous intervention. That was not the intention of my argument, nor was it the argument advanced by my right hon. Friend.
My argument is that the legislation has not prevented terrorism but has led to a good deal of trouble for many innocent people. I will illustrate one or two cases. A constituent of mine left Belfast to go to Glasgow to purchase a taxi. He took with him his eight-year-old son. He left the boat and before he could meet the contact from whom he wished to buy the taxi he was arrested and his young son was taken to a welfare home. After 48 hours the boy's father was eventually released. That young boy had never been out of the company and care of his parents. He had never been to a welfare home, and it must have been a frightening experience for him. I had to make arrangements by telephone for that young boy to be released and flown home.
Last week two 18-year-old lads in my constituency went to Glasgow to watch Celtic. As they were coming back home they were arrested before they got off the boat. They were kept for two or three days and released after I made representations. Those are only two of the many cases I could bring to the attention of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Test referred to constituents of mine who were excluded from Southampton. The men involved are Belfast men married to English wives, and their children are English born. The men have been in steady jobs while they have lived in Southhampton. Their children go to English schools and speak with English accents.


They are unsuited to be sent back to Northern Ireland to live in areas where an English accent might get them into trouble. I have spoken to those people, and I am convinced that they are not and never have been, involved in terrorist activities in this island. I have serious suspicions that the police in that area for reasons known only to themselves felt that it would be right to deport those people to Northern Ireland.
What way is there of preventing this? Will the confidence that normally exists in the House between elected representatives and members of the Government allow the Home Secretary to prove to me that my ideas are wrong and that these people are guilty? If he cannot prove it to me, will he prove it to my hon. Friend the Member for Test? Perhaps if the information cannot be given to me on the grounds that my political ideas might be suspect, could not that proof at least be given to another hon. Member who can be trusted? I am convinced that my hon. Friend the Member for Test is no revolutionary or anarchist. Perhaps information could be given to him which would convince him so that he might convince me. I am seriously perturbed at the way exclusion orders are being granted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
If we have to have this type of Draconian legislation—I do not want it and I shall be voting against it, along with, I hope, many of my hon. Friends—there is no one I would rather see in charge of it than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I believe that he is a decent and compassionate man. However, we can all make mistakes, and I believe that mistakes are being made as regards exclusion orders. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us some indication that where there is serious doubt, or the possibility of injustice being perpetrated on some total innocent accused of being involved in terrorist acts we as elected representatives can make representations and obtain all the information that is necessary to allay our suspicions.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I completely accept—I would have accepted it even before the tribute which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) paid

to me at the end of his speech by saying that he would rather I were in charge of this legislation than anyone else, although I am not sure that I endorse that myself—that my hon. Friend has always been opposed to terrorism. I am sure that he deplores any acts of terrorism which may be carried out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West raised the point that was made in more extreme form by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) by suggesting that people were excluded on the ground that they were undesirable or, as I would prefer to deal with it, because the police had some grievance against them and wished to pick them up in this way. I can assure my hon. Friends and the House that that suggestion is without foundation. No one can be excluded unless a substantial case is made. The matter goes through a number of people before coming to me. I have to make a personal decision upon it. It is clear that these powers have been used in a restricted sense.
When I was asked at the end of November what numbers I thought might be involved, I said that I thought that in the first instance a few dozen might be involved. I had in mind 36 or 48 in the first instance. In fact, over the six months which have elapsed 51 orders have been made. Only 39 have involved exclusion from this country, either because of revocation or because the people concerned were already outside the country. I do not think that anyone can say that I began to mislead the House about the numbers involved in November. In fact, the numbers have been less than I thought likely. I thought that initially there would be between three and four dozen and that the numbers would build up subsequently to a higher figure.
There has been no question of using these powers loosely. Of course, I can be mistaken. I would not claim absolute infallibility. However, I can assure my hon. Friends and the House that there has been no question of excluding anyone unless I have believed that they have been involved in, or were liable to be involved in, the commission of acts of terrorism. I can give the absolute assurance that there has been no question of getting rid of people because someone does not like them or for other matters such as police prejudice. No executive


procedure can be absolutely foolproof. However. I can assure my hon. Friends that this procedure has been used sparingly. Where it has been used I have been convinced, rightly or wrongly—on the whole I think rightly, although I do not claim absolute certainty—there was a danger to the security of the lives of people in this country if the persons concerned had remained.
I cannot prove whether the Act has saved lives. I agree that the fact that we have had no major incidents for the past few months has been due not to the Act but to a change in the position. I believe it to be the case that had we continued with a political situation as regards the activities of the Provisional IRA similar to that which prevailed in 1973 and 1974 the Act would have improved our defences. I think it is justified as a temporary measure on that ground. I cannot prove that it would have made our defences absolute. I would not claim that it would have made them absolute. I think that there have been changes in the position.
I come now for a moment to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), who spoke early in the debate and who, I thought, made a moderate, though in some ways a critical, speech but a speech which I followed closely, about the measure. He referred to relations between the Irish community and, if one likes so to call it, the host or indigenous community in this country and said that he believed that exclusion orders under the Act had exacerbated these relations.
I do not believe that that is so. I cannot prove it not to be so. Let us remember the situation at the end of November and early December. I, like a number of hon. Members who sit for large cities, sit for a city with a large, important and respected Irish population and for a division in it with such a population — part of the city of Birmingham, where, I suppose, the tension was greatest during that period. I say without any doubt at all that the danger of a real backlash and a totally unjustified deterioration of relations between the two communities on a scale that we have never seen since a large Irish community came here has receded substantially in the past six months. I greatly welcome that.
I would not claim that that is because of the Act. I would claim that, had we continued in a position as we were in then, taking no measures to protect the British public, it might well have been the case that the deterioration in relations would have continued. None of us can prove these things, but I say that the Act has not been incompatible with the surmounting of that difficulty and with a very considerable improvement in relations from that difficult period.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) gave a generally cautious welcome to the continuation of the powers, taking the point — with which I agree—that we do not want to go on this way for long and accepting the fact that, if the powers are to be substantially renewed in the autumn, it should be done by legislation when we can review them thoroughly.
The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), who also spoke early in the debate, asked about the question which was raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in our debates in November. That was whether there could be a reverse provision by which people could be excluded from Northern Ireland if they were primarily of English origin and were committing acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
I indicated then that I thought that there was, in principle, certain force in this point and that I would be prepared to consider amending the Act if I thought that this was practical, and a time for amendment had arisen. I would not think it sensible to do that at present, not because I object to it on principle—I agree with it on principle—but because I could not think—I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland agrees with me—of any practical example in which this would apply if the provision were made symmetrical. It is a question not of principle but of practice. It is clearly a matter that we can discuss again if, regrettably, there has to be fresh legislation and we have to consider the matter in that form.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who, I know, has followed these matters very closely and communications from whom I have read carefully and studied throughout the consideration


of the way in which we should proceed with the Act, raised a number of points, from which I will single out two. He asked, first, about the number of occasions on which the power of a police officer to authorise a search under paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 3 had been exercised. These powers are not unprecedented. That does not necessarily mean that one should not ask questions about them. I am informed that there have been 29 cases on which these powers have been exercised.
My hon. Friend raised the point, secondly, about access to solicitors during the five days of extended detention. I have repeatedly emphasised, and do so again now, that the Judges' Rules apply in these circumstances under the Act just as they do in all other cases. There is no suspension of the Judges' Rules so far as this matter is concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) made a speech of great penetration on the issue. I followed very closely and with great sympathy what he said. He was very close to the core of the matter when he said that the House is misleading itself if it thinks that one can have a satisfactory amalgamation of executive and judicial powers. I believe—I notice my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nodding, and he has great experience of these matters—that Northern Ireland has shown this.
If we have executive power, a member of the executive responsible to this House has to answer how it has been exercised. It does not make sense to dress it up in some quasi-judicial robes and pretend that it is judicial when it cannot be by its very nature. With the greatest respect to many hon. Members, whose views and civil libertarian approach I greatly respect and in many ways share, they are barking up the wrong tree when they say that the thing to do is to get some sort of judicial element into this Procedure. The thing to do is to get rid of this legislation as soon as we reasonably can. But to pretend that we can keep this legislation and introduce a quasi-judicial element is misleading.

Mr. Beith: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying, with much of which I agree, surely does not remove the need

to specify what the rôle of the adviser is. Could he make clear whether the rôle of the adviser is to review the evidence or simply to make an assessment of its character, while recognising that this is not a judicial procedure?

Mr. Jenkins: I am glad the hon. Gentleman raised that point. I was aware that he raised it in his speech, which unfortunately I missed as I was out of the Chamber for a while, but I have a note of his remarks. The rôle of the adviser is essentially to give an independent assessment of whether I, having considered what has been given to me through many stages of recommendation and counter-recommendation, am exercising a sensible judgment and give a totally independent view about it. That is the rôle of the adviser under the executive procedure. It is not a judicial procedure. I do not pretend it is, but it is not a nugatory procedure. Of 13 people who have made representations, in five cases the orders have been revoked.
I am not, however, pretending that it is or can be a judicial procedure because in a great number of these cases I have to act on highly sensitive evidence—I should perhaps put the word "evidence" in inverted commas—and I have to use my own judgment in these difficult circumstances as to whether it is better to exclude these people or run the risk of the consequences which might follow from what they are doing here. I have exercised this extremely sparingly and, on the whole, very cautiously.

Mr. George Cunningham: Could my right hon. Friend tell us whether the advisers are given all the evidence, used in this qualified sense, that is later put before the Home Secretary himself?

Mr. Jenkins: The evidence is put before the Home Secretary before the order is signed. Therefore, the evidence is put before the Home Secretary before there is any question of representations, and, therefore, before there is any question of the adviser entering the picture. The adviser can, if he wishes, see the evidence before or after. He does see the evidence, but he is not conducting, and is not intended to conduct, a judicial hearing. I am not pretending that he is. I assure the House that if it were a judicial hearing it would be sensible to do it in public


or semi-public and not in this manner, and to have a totally different procedure.
A great deal of the evidence which has to be dealt with is of a highly sensitive nature. If the evidence and the sources of the evidence were known to the person with whom one was dealing, this in itself, particularly if one subsequently revoked the order, would be extremely damaging to sources of intelligence which are necessarily important in circumstances such as those with which we have to deal. I would not defend this as a permanent procedure were we living in normal circumstances, but I certainly do defend it in circumstances following the outrages of 1973 and 1974.
Let us remember also the number of people whom I have excluded. I do not pretend that exclusion is not at best an inconvenience, and in some cases a hard process, for those to whom it is applied, but it does not automatically deprive them of their liberty, and in any event it is very different from being blown up in an explosion, as has been the fate of people killed by terrorist activities. I feel that we must bear this in mind in having some regard to the proportions of the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) raised a question to which, I know, he has devoted great attention; that is, the procedure for complaints against the police. He attached considerable importance to this matter. I must tell him that I do not think that the question of the Act and of complaints against the police match one another, and I feel that during debates on the passage of the Bill and on its operation he has, if I may say so, seen too close a symmetry or interlocking relationship between the two.
On a purely arithmetical basis, complaints against the police in this country number about 12,000 in a year, whereas the number of people with whom we are dealing in relation to the Act is of an entirely different order. Clearly, there is no symmetry here. I assure my hon. Friend also that if the Act had never been introduced, or if I could get rid of it tomorrow, that would not in any way change my view about the desirability of early introduction of a legislative scheme for permanent machinery introducing an independent element into the

procedure for complaints against the police.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North asked me about the timetable for that, and he quoted—I think it was he—what I said, in the middle of the night in November, under some stress in a desire to get the Bill through, about a possible timetable for complaints against the police. I must say that I have been gratified that I was restrained on that occasion because nothing that I then said was incompatible with what has happened since.
I believe that we are very near to a conclusion of consultation, and I think that I can say that we shall have concluded it some time in June. But that is different from saying that we can immediately legislate, and I cannot give my hon. Friend an undertaking as to the exact date on which it will be introduced. No departmental Minister is in a position to pre-empt the time of the House by suddently announcing during debate precisely when something will be done. I hope very much that it can be done and that, from the point of view of consultation, I shall be ready by the end of this Session, but the House will be aware that the legislative programme is not exactly in an easy position now.
I assure my hon. Friend that this is one of the highest priorities for next Session, and I am determined to put it through. I regard it as an important, major Bill. I shall, of course, take great notice of what is put to me. I thought that the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) substantially exaggerated the position of the Police Federation, but I take great note of what the Police Federation says on the matter. I am determined to put it through, though I should be misleading the House were I to pretend that it could be done this Session. I emphasise again, however, that I regard this as a long-term matter totally independent of any temporary legislation of the sort with which we are here dealing.

Mr. Mather: I put it in the mildest possible terms. There are members of the Police Federation who are unhappy about this proposal. I do not think that I could put it more mildly than that. That is hardly exaggeration.

Mr. Jenkins: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says—although, if he put the matter as mildly as that, it was hardly worth putting it at all. With respect to him, I believe he put the point much more strongly than that. I do not deny that the Police Federation has a view about the matter, but it is a reasonably constructive view and we are getting over the difficulties. I give my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North a complete assurance as to the long-term position.

Mr. John Prescott: Could my right hon. Friend amplify the matter a little because there seems to be some confusion about the discussions? Some of us were under the impression that the discussions had ended. My right hon. Friend now says that the discussions are continuing and that it is hoped they will finish by the month of June. Will my right hon. Friend consider tying this matter to the new piece of legislation in November aimed at replacing the present provisions?

Mr. Jenkins: I think that would be a remarkably foolish thing to do. Here we are dealing with a major question which introduces an independent element into the matter of complaints against the police, of which there are about 12,000 a year. Tonight we are dealing with cases which, at most, amount to several hundreds a year. Therefore, it is foolish to suggest that the two should be interlinked. Furthermore, we are dealing with what I regard as a temporary piece of legislation. For my hon. Friend or anybody else to try to link the two would be to invite the corollary that when this legislation lapses, so should the procedure for independent complaint against the police. If my hon. Friend tries to make the one dependent on the other, I assure him that that is a consequence I could not accept. It would be foolish to link this major long-term measure with a short-term measure of this sort.
Subject to that, I have given—and I hope they will be accepted—assurances

so far as I can to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North about my attitude to the timetable. I hope that he will be reasonably satisfied.

The House naturally has made some criticisms of the working of the measure. It would be amazing if that had not been the case when we realise that the measure went through its stages in the course of a sitting of 18 hours, under stress, emotion and tension. I would be surprised if there had not been certain deficiencies. However, whether by luck or judgment, it has not been so botched a piece of legislation as one might have thought in the circumstances. I have no doubt some hon. Members would wish to propose some amendments, but I would resist them. We have to have this legislation for a further limited period.

I do not like legislation of this sort. I do not intend to keep it on the statute book indefinitely, but it has helped in the past, we need it in the present uncertain position within the next six months, and I hope it may not be necessary for longer than that—but I cannot be sure. On that basis, and on the understanding that we may need substantially to review the major part of these provisions in November, I hope the House will agree to accept the order and permit the Bill to run for another six months.

Mr. Cryer: Before my right hon. Friend concludes, will he assure the House that he intends, in taking account of all the circumstances, not to renew the legislation at the end of the next six months but to introduce new legislation [HON. MEMBERS: "He has already said that."] Will he reiterate that point?

Mr. Jenkins: I gave a careful account at the close of my speech, and I chose my words carefully. I think it would be confusing for me to attempt to summarise them.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 10.

Division No. 210.]
AYES
[10.50 p.m.


Anderson, Donald
Booth, Albert
Carter, Ray


Archer, Peter
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Armstrong, Ernest
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Bates, Alf
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Corbett, Robin


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)




Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Kilfedder, James
Ryman, John


Cryer, Bob
Lamborn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lamond, James
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lawrence, Ivan
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Dalyell, Tam
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silvester, Fred


Deakins, Eric
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Small, William


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Snaps, Peter


Dempsey, James
McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Dormand, J. D.
Magee, Bryan
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Stainton, Keith


Dunlop, John
Marquand, David
Stallard, A. W.


Dunn, James A.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mather, Carol
Stott, Roger


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Millan, Bruce
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tinn, James


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Tomlinson, John


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin
Moate, Roger
Torney, Tom


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Molloy, William
Urwin, T. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Molyneaux, James
Viggers, Peter


Garrett, W. E. (Wellsend)
Monro, Hector
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


George, Bruce
Moonman, Eric
Wakeham, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Golding, John
Moyle, Roland
Ward, Michael


Gould, Bryan
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Watkins, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Neubert, Michael
Watkinson, John


Grant, John (Islington C)
Oakes, Gordon
Weatherill, Bernard


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric
Weetch, Ken


Hampson, Dr Keith
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Wellbeloved, James


Harper, Joseph
Ovenden, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
White, James (Pollok)


Hatton, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Park, George
Whitlock, William


Hunter, Adam
Parker, John
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Perry, Ernest
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Winterton, Nicholas


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Woodall, Alec


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Prescott, John
Woof, Robert


Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rooker, J. W.



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kaufman, Gerald
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Kerr, Russell
Rowlands, Ted
Mr. David Stoddart.




NOES


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Flannery, Martin



Bidwell, Sydney
Loyden, Eddie
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Miss Joan Maynard and


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Selby, Harry
Mr. Stan Thorne.


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Question accordingly agreed to.


Resolved,


That the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 (Continuance) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.

AIR TRAVEL RESERVE FUND BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords by one of their clerks as follows. The Lords have agreed to the Air Travel Reserve Fund Bill with an amendment to which the Lords desire the concurrence of this House. Typed copies of this amendment are now available in the Vote Office.

Lords amendment considered.

Clause 4

CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE FUND BY AIR TRAVEL ORGANISERS

Lords amendment: in page 7, line 4, at end insert:
() Sums payable in respect of contributions from air travel organisers to whom this section applies shall be paid by instalments at intervals of not more than three months and no such sum shall be payable before 1st September 1975.

11.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): I beg to move, that this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment would add a new subsection to Clause 4, which deals with contributions to the Reserve Fund. As originally drafted, Clause 4 did not go into any details of rates of contributions and periods of payment. These details will be specified in regulations, in order to provide the greatest degree of flexibility. The new subsection seeks to reduce this flexibility in two ways. First it provides that no contributions to the Reserve Fund shall be payable in respect of any period before 1st September 1975; second, it provides that contributions shall not be payable in respect of any period longer than three months.
I recognise the reason for these two propositions. They stem from the fears of the travel trade which is concerned at the possible effects of the payment of contributions on the availability of working capital. However, this problem was fully recognised by the Government and we have already taken it into account. It was for this reason that the increase

in the bonding levels was made in two stages, the first in October last year and the second more recently on 1st April. Similarly the levy to the Reserve Fund will be introduced in two stages, 1 per cent. initially and 2 per cent. from April 1976.
But let me now consider the two propositions contained in the new subsection. First, as was stated in another place, if the Bill receives Royal Assent before the end of this month, contributions cannot become payable before 1st August at the earliest. Hence the amendment would enforce a delay of one month. I appreciate that even a short deferment such as this could be welcome to some firms, and I can therefore give a firm undertaking that, whatever the House may decide on the Lords amendment, contributions will not be payable before 1st September and the regulations will be drafted accordingly.
The other part of the amendment would in practice result in contributions being paid quarterly. This produces a practical difficulty, because one contribution will be due in midsummer, at the height of the holiday season. The payment of the contribution is a condition for obtaining, or for continuing to hold, a licence. If the contribution was not paid, the air travel organiser would be in breach of his licence conditions and the Civil Aviation Authority would therefore have to consider whether to suspend the licence. The authority would naturally be reluctant to do this in midsummer simply in order to enforce payment of the contribution, because of the risk of stranding large numbers of holidaymakers overseas. The same problem would not arise to the same extent in April and October, since the number of holidaymakers overseas who would be affected by the suspension of a licence would be much less. It is for this practical reason that we still prefer payments for six months.
Nevertheless, although I cannot enter into any firm commitment that the proposed period of six months for paying contributions will be changed, I can undertake that the Government will hold further discussions with the travel trade and will consider this point further.
Finally, I emphasise a point which I made earlier, namely, that the rates of


contributions, and the periods for which they will be payable, will be specified in regulations which must be laid before the House. Therefore, hon. Members will have another opportunity to consider this question. For that reason, I cannot agree with the amendment.

Mr. Terence Higgins: As the Under-Secretary has said, there are essentially two points covered by the amendment—first, the interval at which various payments to the fund should be made, and secondly the question of the starting date. I think that we can welcome the hon. Gentleman's assurance on the second point, although it would have been more appropriate if he had accepted this point earlier so that it could have been written into the Bill rather than that we should have to wait until the regulations are made.
I should like to pursue a number of points with the Under-Secretary. First, I wish to take up a point made by the Government spokesman in the House of Lords. Lord Beswick said:
Unless I am a very innocent character and I have been misled, there is absolutely no question of levying these contributions in order to evade any responsibility in connection with Court Line. That we can eliminate from the discussion altogether.
It is within the recollection of hon. Members, however, that the fund which is to be established out of the levy and the Government contribution by way of loan to be made to it will compensate a number of people who lost their money in the Court Line affair last year as a result of a misleading statement by the Secretary of State for Industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The old violin.

Mr. Higgins: The old violin apparently had not reached the Government spokesman in the House of Lords, because he said:
there is absolutely no question of levying these contributions in order to evade any responsibility in connection with Court Line".
It is clear that some of the contributions will go to compensate people who lost money in the Court Line affair last year. I should like the Under-Secretary to clarify the position on that point because it seems to me a remarkable statement for the Government spokesman in the House of Lords to have made.
My next point concerns the date of payment and the intervals. If the date in the regulations is 1st September, as the Under-Secretary suggested it will be, some companies may still have to levy the additional surcharge at the airport. I am not sure whether that is so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will confirm whether the companies will not need to levy the amount at the airport. Presumably it depends to some extent on the time period of individual companies. If the date is 1st September, will the hon. Gentleman say whether any company will find it necessary to levy the amount at the airport?
The British Airport Authority has said that it is very disruptive for tourists to find that they have to pay a charge when proceeding on their journey when they are under the impression that they had paid the full amount on completing their booking or before leaving for the airport.
The main problem on this whole question concerns cash flow. A very heavy burden is now to be placed on travel firms because there is a bonding arrangement which, as the Minister said, has been increased. In addition there is to be a payment into the fund by way of levy. Companies which are perfectly viable, sound and reputable may still have considerable difficulty in raising in liquid cash the considerable sums which may be required under the levy arrangement. This was one of the factors which led us to believe that the three-month period might be more appropriate than the six months mentioned by the Minister.
It was remarkable that the argument about the scale of levy should have been advanced in another place and again by the Minister this evening. That argument was never raised in Committee. This evening the Minister said that the levy was being created and that it would amount only to 1 per cent. initially and subsequently 2 per cent. In another place, and apparently by implication this evening, the argument was advanced that this variation will go some way to meet the amendment which their Lordships have put to us because the rate of levy will be halved initially. That is an odd way of putting the point. Our understanding throughout the Committee stage was that the levy was starting off at 1 per cent. and was then to be doubled.
The argument can be advanced either way. The most peculiar argument, however, and one which we did not hear in the Commons, was advanced in the other place. Lord Beswick said
we have agreed that the first contribution will be a smaller one than any actuarial estimate would suggest. We suggest here—and, as it happens, we have taken the 50 per cent. cut which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is suggesting".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13th May 1975; Vol. 360, c. 647, 653.]
In the long debates we had on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, I cannot recall any actuarial estimate of the 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. being given. This fund is concerned with travel firms which run into financial difficulty. I cannot conceive of any precise actuarial basis on which the 1 per cent. or the 2 per cent. figures should be based.
As far as I know, there is no actuarial estimate in the insurance sense on which to base such a calculation. However, suddenly, once the Bill reached another place, that estimate appeared. I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether such an estimate exists.
The timing of the payments is extremely arbitrary because many people whose holidays have long since been disrupted will be compensated from the fund. The levy will be imposed quite arbitrarily on those taking their holidays this year or next year. It appears that those who take their holidays this year before 1st September will not pay into the fund. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point. It is obviously of interest to those who are going on holiday this year.
11.15 p.m.
There is also the question of whether there is to be any retrospective payment and whether payments will be levied before the Bill becomes law. This aspect gave cause for concern in another place. We should be grateful for the Minister's elucidation of the precise situation. We are grateful for his statement about the date of 1st September, but we would have preferred to have it in the Bill rather than to do it by order. I see no reason why the original situation should not have been specified in the Bill with provision to amend it by order.
On the question of arrangements for three-monthly or six-monthly payments, I

understand the point the Minister made about the peak season but he feels that he needs the sanction of the ability to withdraw a licence in the case of a firm which wilfully withholds the levy. It is curious to say that such a situation would be dealt with by withholding the licence. If the firm could not pay the levy, this would give cause for concern and, presumably, would give rise to a payment out of the fund rather than a payment into it.
We understand that the Minister is to have discussions with the trade on this matter. In view of the assurances concerning the starting date, I do not advise my hon. Friends to press the amendment to a Division.

Mr. Michael Neubert: As it is three months since the Second Reading of the Bill, I record my interest again. For the greater part of my professional life I have been an air travel organiser—the category of person specifically affected by the provisions of the Bill.
It is a great pleasure to welcome the Under-Secretary back to consideration of the Bill, in which he has not taken part since he replied for the Government on Second Reading. I do not know whether his return is associated with the fact that we have a glimpse of a concession in such a desert of inflexibility, but it is welcome.
Throughout consideration of the Bill Ministers have set their faces like flint against any question of amending it or conceding anything. Amendment after amendment has been moved without success. Even as recently as this afternoon, the noble Lord speaking for the Government in another place got quite shirty that noble Lords should have had the temerity to pass an amendment and cause a late night vigil here to consider it further.
This is a reasonable amendment on which advice could be taken from the industry, and I appreciate the Government's undertaking to consider the matter further with the industry, particularly in relation to the frequency of payments. Until now, such was the inflexibility of the Department of Trade, I had begun to think that ministerial edicts were engraved on tablets of stone, immutable and not to be altered in any way.
It would be helpful if the starting date for payment was 1st September. Charter operators require clients to make payment of the balance by eight weeks before departure. This means invoicing clients 10 weeks before departure. Therefore, two and a half months is the minimum period which is necessary if the levy is to be shown as a separate item on the invoice.
The alternatives are to invoice this item separately, which would be costly in postage, a burden on the administration and an irritation to the traveller just before his holidays, or for a surcharge to be paid at the airport. This is so undesirable that I believe that the British Airports Authority has banned it. It is not very satisfactory for passengers who are about to embark on a holiday for which they have saved and looked forward to for a long time to be asked for a cash payment at the departure desk at the airport. If those two alternatives can be avoided, it will be very much in the interests of the travelling public and the holiday companies alike.
The frequency of the payments is perhaps a much more serious matter than the Government have realised. Perhaps I may exempt the Ministers present from that comment, but the noble Lord in another place had a strange misconception of what the levy is in practical terms. He said that paying at quarterly intervals did not mean paying any less. That is what it means, however, to the tour operator. The levy is on the tour operator. He has to recover it over a period of months from his clients. During the period when he has not recovered it he is paying a temporary tax.
When the total is about £ 680,000 for a summer season and £ 320,000 for a winter season for the largest company, it is a substantial sum. Although it diminishes progressively over six months, that sum is out of the company's keeping and it is losing the interest on it. It has to find the money in the first place. The noble Lord suggested that it can accumulate the money. It can accumulate it from its own resources, but it cannot anticipate the recovery of the levy. It must wait until the starting date before it can start to get the money from its clients. This is quite an imposition, following a number of others. The bond has been not simply increased but

doubled, which means an extra £ 21 million in the case of the largest company.
Companies are also under increasingly stringent financial requirements from the very circumstances of holiday operation these days. They get their money later, because of the excess capacity in the market, which encourages people to book close to the date of their intended departure, because they know that they can get the holiday of their choice. That was not so in earlier years. The excess of capacity is one of the worst factors in the market at present. The companies also have to make advance payments to airline operators and hoteliers.
All these matters are tightening the financial belt. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the frequency of the payments should be eased so as not to require such a large sum to be stumped up by the company every six months. I hope that there will be a successful outcome to the discussions.
I take the Minister's point that the change would require one of the quarterly payments to be made at the height of the summer, but I do not regard 1st June as the peak of the summer season. I do not mean that solely in a meteorological sense, although after the weather last weekend, the third weekend in May, I do not think that anyone would describe 1st June as likely to be the height of the summer. It is certainly not the height of the travelling summer either. The peak weekend is normally taken to be the last weekend in July, when schools have broken up and parents take their children away on holiday. A reasonable height of the summer would be July—August rather than June. I would hope that there would be ample time to organise a safety operation and redispose clients if a company were in trouble at 1st June.
Having two six-monthly payments puts a great onus of responsibility on the Civil Aviation Authority. If the risk could be avoided by quarterly payments, that would be to everyone's advantage.
For these reasons I very much welcome the indication of attitude shown by the Minister tonight. I hope he will recognise that the Bill, as a second line of defence, is just one of several such measures. If one goes so far as not only


to lock the stable door after the horse has gone—which, it is accepted, is what we are doing—but to batten up the hatches all round, the horse is in danger of not being able to breathe, let alone escape. As the traveller's interest is in a profitable travel industry, I hope that due weight will be given to these points of concern which have been expressed both here and throughout the industry.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I was sorry to hear the Under-Secretary of State propose that the House should disagree with the amendment. In recent months when I have listened to one Government spokesman after another suggesting that we should disagree with Lords amendments, I have often thought that the House could perhaps learn from the collective wisdom of another place.
The amendment has several attractions. The main attraction is that it provides for the contributions to the Air Travel Reserve Fund to be paid by instalments. That would be a valuable concession to the trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) who is in a unique position because of his specialised knowledge, has drawn attention to the benefit which would flow to air travel organisers from an instalment payment basis. He also dealt with the point raised by the Under-Secretary about the payments becoming due at the height of the summer season, and he has perhaps taken away some of the concern which the Under-Secretary of State rightly expressed about the difficulties which may occur.
I welcome what the Minister said about further consultations with the travel trade. I look forward to hearing the outcome and hope that there will be an opportunity to discuss it when regulations are laid before the House. In those discussions I hope that the Minister will have in mind the way in which the quarterly payment basis will work. As I see it, the payment would be on the basis of the total takings of the air travel organiser during the preceding three months, based upon the estimated amount payable during the ensuing three months. That arrangement could do much to relieve the cash flow problem. We all know of the tremendous cash flow difficulties experienced by firms throughout the country, and I hope that the

Minister will have them in mind when he talks to the air travel organisers.
I am glad to note that the first payment will not be due until 1st September this year. I assume that it will be based upon the takings of the preceding three months, but perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
This debate brings to a conclusion our long discussions on the Air Travel Reserve Fund. It brings to a temporary halt the long discussions on the Court Line case last year. Perhaps the Minister will give the House a clue as to when the Ombudsman's report on the Court Line affair will be forthcoming. It is a matter of particular interest to all hon. Members who participated in the debate on the Bill and of general interest to the House.

Mr. Deakins: The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) made several comments, one or two of which related to the Lords debate. I assume that on this occasion I am in order in referring to the debate in another place.
My noble Friend Lord Beswick, the Minister of State, Department of Industry, said that contributions were not levied in order to evade any responsibilities in connection with Court Line. We stand by that statement because the issue of responsibility is still to be decided in the light of the report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Companies Act inquiry. The contributions will be used by Court Line customers, but that is a different point and compatible with Lord Beswick's statement.
The hon. Member for Worthing and the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) commented on payments at airports. According to ABTA, travel organisers need three months' notice to charge the levy and to invoice. If a start is made on 1st September, that period of notice will be given. That is true of most travel organisers. There may be exceptions, but one hopes that there are not more than one or two.
11.30 p.m.
The estimates made for the 1 per cent. levy this year and the 2 per cent. levy next year were made by the Department of Trade, in consultation with the Treasury, so as to strike a balance between the need to build up the fund and


the need to avoid an excessive burden on the trade. I can confirm that there will be no retrospective payment of contribution for periods before the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Higgins: The Minister was going a little fast, but I understood him to say that there is not an actuarial system. That is not what was said by the Minister in another place.

Mr. Deakins: I am not responsible for every word used by my noble Friend in another place. We have to consider what has been said in this place on behalf of the Government. I can confirm the point about there being no retrospective payment.

Mr. Higgins: As I understand the convention of the House, we can refer to statements made by Ministers in another place because Ministers are assumed to be homogenous in their views on a particular issue. Perhaps it is a convention that has been tainted lately, but that is the general view on these matters.
If we are considering their Lordships' amendment and considering the argument for its not being accepted, I do not think we can go along with the proposition that because a Minister in this place does not agree with the Minister in another place we should not accept the Lords amendment. That would be a curious view. The Minister in another place, basing his argument on the question of reducing the 1 per cent. in the first instance, said that the levy was a smaller one than was suggested by the actuarial estimate. However, it seems that there is no actuarial estimate and that the noble Lord should not have used the expression.

Mr. Deakins: I can confirm that there is no actuarial estimate whatever my noble Friend may have said in another place. However, he was correct in the point he was making.
A point was raised by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) about a company in trouble having its licence suspended at the height of the holiday season. The hon. Gentleman suggests that that is something with which we have to live. We certainly have to live with it. But we are concerned about a company which is financially sound but which does not pay its contribution. It would be a very stony-hearted or hard

hearted CAA that would suspend the operating licence of a major tour operator merely because it had not paid up on 1st June at the height of the holiday season. That is the sort of problem we want to consider in our discussions with the travel trade.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) made a number of points, but I think he realises that we are doing our best and seeking to meet the difficulties of the travel trade in this regard. However, we must bear in mind the problem that I have already voiced twice this evening about licence suspension at the height of the holiday season. If we can overcome that difficult I am sure that the regulations will meet the views of both sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment to the Bill: Mr. Thomas Cox, Mr. Clinton Davis, Mr. Eric Deakins, Mr. Terence Higgins and Mr. Michael Shersby; Three to be the quorum. — [Mr. Deakins.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. — [Mr. Coleman.]

BOAT BUILDING AND REPAIRING INDUSTRY

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I begin by declaring an interest as a member of a small sailing club. I should declare that interest although I am not a boat owner and my future interest is more likely to be found in training my children to sail rather than having time to sail myself.
I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Industry is to reply to this debate as I shall be approaching the problems of the boat industry in general and the problems that concern small businesses in particular. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member


for Dumfries, (Mr. Monro) is present on the Opposition Front Bench, reflecting his interest as our spokesman on these matters.
I turn quickly to the problems of the industry and to small business in this context. What are the problems of the boat building and repairing industry? It will come as no surprise to the Under-Secretary when I say that the chief and most pressing problem is the recent imposition of 25 per cent. value added tax. In this connection I draw attention to Early-Day Motion No. 422, which stands in the names of myself and my hon. Friends, and which describes the effects of the increase in VAT on the boating industry. The wording of the motion summarises effectively the problems of the industry. It says:
That this House deplores the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal to levy 25 per cent. VAT on the boating industry; regards such discrimination as totally unfair, affecting as it does some half a million owners of small boats; views the extension of multi-rate VAT as indefensible; and further warns the Government that this higher tax will substantially reduce home and export sales capacity worth £140 million while causing widespread unemployment of craftsmen engaged in boat building and repairing.
That motion has already been signed by 54 Members, who are not confined to my party. My main theme tonight is that the general argument—indeed, the general unrest and worry in the boating industry—extends across all parts of the House.
I think the Under-Secretary will be aware of the Committee proceedings on the Finance (No. 2) Bill last Thursday. One of the most notable speeches came from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who put forward many arguments that I shall seek to reiterate tonight. I do so—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Perhaps I may help the hon. Member. It is necessary for him to realise that he can make only incidental references to the need for legislative changes. I have been checking up the position quickly, because I did not want to interrupt the hon. Member unnecessarily, but I find that he cannot base his Adjournment motion on the need for a change in legislation.

Mr. Marshall: I am grateful for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall seek

to confine my remarks to the general problems of the industry, but I have unfortunately to put them in the context of the tax changes without seeking changes in the legislation as such.
I turn to the first of the basic problems which the industry faces. I shall not reiterate all the arguments which have been advanced on taxation matters generally, but we have first to recognise that the boating industry employs about 30,000 craftsmen, and those 30,000 craftsmen are people who cannot readily be assimilated into other industries. The boating industry generally serves about 2¾ million people in this country, of whom the vast majority can by no stretch of the imagination be regarded as among the better-off. That is common ground among hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Secondly, most of the 2¾ million people who indulge in boating have been introduced to sailing through sailing clubs and youth organisations, such as the Sea Scouts. The Government provide subsidies for coaching and sailing centres but in some strange way they seem to be attempting to negate this by their current legislation, which wipes out the benefit through taxation.
Thirdly, the boating industry has an outstanding record in exports, which amounted to over £40 million last year. The export market depends on a strong United Kingdom domestic market. It is necessary to remind ourselves that, after all, new models cannot simply be launched into export markets; they must be tried out in home waters first and have their sailability tested in the home market. Only when they are successful in the domestic market can the export market be built up.
In addition—this is particularly important at this time of year—there is an important seasonal balance, because foreign sales of boat builders are generally geared to the International Boat Show in January, with deliveries to be made at the start of the sailing season, which is about now. It is therefore essential for United Kingdom sales particularly to mop up capacity during the autumn and winter, to maintain year-round production.
Fourth, this feature is typical of the problems arising in terms of cash flow as a direct result of Government action,


because clearly the payment of VAT on spares and on maintenance generally imposes an immediate cash burden on the industry, and this at a time of reduced home sales.
These problems cannot be judged in isolation. It is part of my charge and my view that the problems of the industry have stretched across both Governments, particularly over the past two years.
Here I must touch briefly on the recent history of the industry and, indeed, the way in which Government actions have affected it. I can go back further than the past two years and remind the Under-Secretary that it was his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who in January 1966 said that the boating industry would not be subject to further taxation provided that it maintained its export record. That was at a time when the industry's export record was something under the £ 10 million mark. It has since quadrupled to over £ 40 million. The industry has played its part.
Since then the industry has seen under successive Governments the introduction of VAT on boats at 10 per cent. in April 1973; the limitation of credit in October 1973; and in December 1973 the Consumer Credit Branch of the Department of Trade and Industry, as it then was, ruled that the hire-purchase order applied to traditional marine mortgages in excess of two years. This was followed by a directive issued to finance houses by the Bank of England which imposed further stringent financial restrictions upon the industry.
Following that, there has been a general rundown in sales on the home front and, although repair and maintenance work by the early part of last year was in reasonable shape, the fact was that the industry was beginning to feel the general impact both of taxation changes and, indeed, of the general state of the economy.
We therefore come to the problems arising from the Budget in the autumn of last year, when loan interest was disallowed as an income tax deduction for consumer purchases, including boats. By January of this year boat sales had slumped further, as judged by the Boat Show, and the 1974 industry statistics showed that while export sales had

doubled, the home market had dropped by nearly 40 per cent. It was expected at that stage that unemployment would reach 6,000 by the spring.
Following that sequence of events, it was both sensible and appropriate that the Ship and Boat Builders National Federation should seek meetings with the Department of Industry and with the Treasury. As the Under-Secretary will know, his noble Friend Lord Beswick held a meeting with the federation in January of this year. At that time representations were made to ease the mortgage restrictions in view of the state of the trade in the boating industry.
On 24th March, as a follow-up to that meeting, only three weeks before Budget Day the federation met the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and put forward its views for further easement in view of the particular problems the industry faced. Only three weeks later we had the imposition of VAT.
These are the basic problems. They have undoubtedly had their impact on the industry. It is very difficult to be dogmatic so soon after the Budget, but the figures which are now coming through bear out the difficulties which I have described. Whereas in 1973–74 one major company in the Ship and Boat Builders National Federation had orders averaging seven boats a week, in the two weeks of the VAT "holiday"—that is, between the date of the announcement of the VAT increase and the time when VAT actually applied at the higher rate—orders went up to 30 boats. In the week succeeding 1st May those orders completely disappeared. Similarly, for monthly inquiries, whereas the average was 260 for 1973–74, in the two weeks of the VAT holiday 350 inquiries were received, and in the last two weeks since 1st May inquiries have dropped to seven for two weeks. This is a measure of the way the business is already declining further.
In the light of this dismal saga, I turn to the rôle of the Department of Industry. I am sure that hon. Members will wish to fight their own fight in relation to the Finance (No. 2) Bill, but at this stage we are at least entitled to seek an expression of views from the Department of Industry. I therefore put three specific questions to the Under-Secretary.
First, can the hon. Gentleman say what consultations took place between the federation's meeting with his noble Friend and the further meetings which it held with the Financial Secretary, between Jannuary and March of this year? Secondly, will he confirm his willingness to make sure that the views of the Department of Industry are fully known and expressed to the Treasury in the light of the undoubted difficulties which the boating industry faces?
I had considered tonight sounding out the Under-Secretary's views on the applicability of Sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1972 should the problems of the industry assume the proportions that I fear. I shall be interested in any comment he may have to make on that point. Frankly, however, such action is unlikely to be of much help because it would come too late, and equally nationally it would not make any kind of sense to have that kind of help when the answer lies clearly in the Government's hands in the field of taxation.
I close with this thought. It is, after all, when industries in this country are seeking support that they turn to the Department of Industry. It is that Department which they expect to fight their corner with the Treasury or with any other Govrenment Department. It is because we know that the Under-Secretary has an interest in small business that we look to him especially to give us assurance tonight.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. John Wakeham: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has reached agreement with the Minister.

Mr. Wakeham: May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) on raising this subject on the Adjournment and thank him and the Minister for allowing me a minute of their time so that I may speak in support of what my hon. Friend has said.
I should first declare an interest as the owner of a small boat, although I had frankly forgotten that I have such a thing since I arrived in this House, so little have I seen it. Nevertheless I associate myself with my hon. Friend's remarks. His constituency is on the

South Coast and mine is on the East Coast, in Burnham, Maldon and Tollesbury, areas with which I know the Minister is familiar.
There is very deep concern about the future of boat building and small boats. We are deeply concerned about their prospects as a result of various things which have happened in the last two years. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurance that he is fully aware of the problems and some hope that when we are back in our constituencies we can explain to the many people involved the concern that the Government have for those problems.

11.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): May I first say that, representing the Department which is responsible for sponsoring the boat building industry, I have a great deal of concern about its future. I am very much indebted to the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) for having put the case so effectively tonight. We are also indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Wakeham) for his support.
This is the first Adjournment debate—and I have attended them with what seems monotonous regularity—in which I have seen so many Members in the Chamber at one time. Indeed, one of my colleagues from Scotland occupies the Opposition Front Bench. I am therefore rather overcome by the interest which is shown in this subject.
I wish to stress that we in the Department are concerned about the whole question of boat building, and I hope in the course of my comments to put some of the problems into perspective and to shed a little light on some of the misconceptions which have arisen.
Although the industry may feel that it has been hard done by in the last two years, I want to make it clear from the outset that the Government are not bent on using fiscal measures to victimise boat builders and boating enthusiasts. Neither do they intend to do so in the future.
It is important for the industry to bear in mind that boating has not been singled out among sports or other recreational activities for special treatment. As the hon. Member for Arundel reminded us, the previous Conservative administration


introduced credit restrictions extending over a wide range of goods, many of which were designed for recreational use. These imposed a minimum down payment of 33⅓ per cent. and a maximum repayment period of 24 months on certain goods, including boats. In addition, finance houses were directed to comply with the spirit of these restrictions, with the effect that marine mortgages were reduced from five years to two years. Undoubtedly this measure affected the boat building industry's sales, as it did those of the other industries. Since we came into power we have carefully considered whether any changes to these terms could be made, but in the face of continuing economic difficulties my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not feel able to grant any relaxations in respect of boats.
My right hon. Friend explained in his recent Budget Statement that the current economic situation has made it necessary for him to restrict consumer spending and to raise additional revenue. This was to be achieved in part by imposing a higher rate of VAT on what he described as less essential goods such as those large items which are usually purchased separately, and boats fall pretty squarely into that category. There is, however, no question of boats having been singled out for taxation at the higher rate, which applies also to a wide range of other goods used in recreational and leisure pursuits, including caravans, hi-fi equipment, light aircraft and so on.
I know that the application of the higher rate of VAT to boats and the complex range of related accessories, parts and services has caused some uncertainty among those in the boating trade. In particular, there were fears that retailers specialising in boating goods would be required to charge the higher rate of VAT on items which could be sold by general hardware retailers at the standard rate.
The special problems of the higher rate of VAT relating to the boating industry have been kept in mind by Customs and Excise, which has maintained contact with the boat builders' federation to try to iron out some of the administrative difficulties which could occur. I understand that together they have produced a schedule which defines exactly which

items are liable to the higher rate of tax and those which are covered by the standard rate. Retailers in the boating industry can now be assured that the rate of VAT applicable to any item is covered by the schedule and does not depend either on where the item is bought or on the nature of its intended use. This schedule, I understand, has been distributed among the federation's membership and can be made available at any of the VAT offices.
Having made that point, I now turn to the implications of these measures for the industry. Obviously, stringent measures to limit spending will affect home demand. Indeed, that is precisely what the Budget was intended to do. The boat building industry has drawn attention to the fall in home sales in the last year, although how much of that was due to the general economic situation and how much to credit restrictions it is not possible to say. A higher rate of VAT is likely to lead to a drop in home demand, but just how much this will affect employment in the industry will depend on the level of total demand, taking exports fully into account, and the extent to which the industry will be able to adapt to changing circumstances.
Because of the structure of the boat building industry, it is difficult to make an accurate assessment of the effect that a reduction in demand is likely to have. The trade association has nearly 900 members, and these include firms producing a wide range of goods and services associated with boats and boating—not only boat builders themselves but manufacturers of marine engines, makers of the multitude of items which come under the general heading of equipment, and also firms involved with the hiring, mooring and storage of boats.

Mr. Michael Marshall: I appreciate the Minister's difficulty in being precise, but does he accept the vital connection between exports and a sound home domestic market?

Mr. Mackenzie: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my comments. I am very concerned about that point.
The net effect on the industry of changes in the level of demand will depend on exports, which represent about 30 per cent. of turnover, as well as home


sales. Export sales in recent years have accounted for an increasing proportion of the industry's turnover, and even though home sales have fallen in recent months the export market is still very buoyant.
The larger firms, therefore, which make up the bulk of the industry's output, are far less dependent on the home market and now have a greater incentive to divert spare capacity to the export market. It is true that these companies depend to a certain extent on the stage payments received for home orders to finance their export sales, but the placing of home orders in the fortnight immediately before the Budget measures came into operation means that companies should be able to maintain a reasonable cash flow position for a while. In addition, I should point out that the full range of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's credit insurance and associated financing facilities is in principle available to all firms, including the smallest, and no doubt the industry will continue to make use of them.

Mr. Peter Viggers: If the Government are not hitting the export business, presumably they are hitting the home market and the 21 million people who sail dinghies and yachts. This will prevent those people following their hobby in this country and may encourage them to take holidays overseas.

Mr. Mackenzie: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer obviously takes all these considerations into account. When he took these measures, he no doubt knew the effect of them and, indeed, knew that they would have a serious effect. That is the whole point of the strategy involving either putting money into the economy or taking it out. On this occasion my right hon. Friend thought that that was the right thing to do in taking the action he did.
Of course I am very concerned about exports, and I hope that the industry will take up as much of the potential for exports as it can. Whatever we in the Government can do, we certainly shall do to assist that effort. There is great opportunity available to the industry. There are big problems—the

hon. Member for Arundel mentioned some of them—for people in the small firms, which is a matter of particular interest for me with my responsibilities in that area. I am very much concerned about the adverse conditions affecting small businesses and that closures and redundancies which have resulted. However, I wish to point out that my Department will look carefully at these matters and that we shall do all we can to ease the situation.
I am sure the industry will recognise that my Department fully understands its views and fears for the future, and that we have always been anxious to give what help we can. We have an excellent relationship with the federation. The rôle of sponsor is not an easy one. We have always been concerned to take account of the industry's views and difficulties in formulating Government policy, but I am talking of economic circumstances in which it is difficult to make exceptions even for what appear to be the most deserving cases. This is why we sometimes have to explain unpalatable decisions which the industry may feel are directed against it. As I have said, this is not the case.
I know of the hon. Member for Arundel's interest in this matter. The federation has been in touch with my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State who has assured it that careful consideration will certainly be given to more lenient terms. My Department has been in close touch with the Treasury about this. I regret that, in the light of the economic difficulties of all sectors of industry, it has not been possible to grant relaxation to boats. However, the Financial Secretary said in the House only the other evening that he would gladly receive representatives of the industry to discuss their problem further. It would be useful if they took up this offer when the time was ripe.

Mr. Hector Monro: I have already taken up the Financial Secretary's offer and am arranging a deputation to see him as soon as possible. Why has sailing, alone of the 125 physical sports, been singled out for this penal increase in VAT? It will apply to sailing, canoeing, rowing boats and racing shells. We find it inexplicable.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said earlier—

Mr. Monro: I did.

Mr. Mackenzie: Then the hon. Gentleman had better read the Official Report with some care.
I said that I did not believe that this activity had been singled out as the hon. Member suggests. If he wants a debate on VAT, he knows what line to take. It is not to raise the matter on the Adjournment with my Department. As the sponsoring Department concerned with boats, particularly small boats, we shall continue to watch developments closely, particularly those affecting the small firms, and give the most sympathetic consideration

to the industry's claims as soon as circumstances permit.
The last Conservative Government first introduced measures affecting the boat building industry in 1973, and we have not been able to relax the decisions taken then. No doubt, if the hon. Gentleman had thought about it, he would have raised the matter in the latter part of 1973. As soon as we can, we shall put these views to the Treasury and trust that any discriminatory action taken against boat building and sports of this kind will be ended as soon as economic circumstances permit.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve o'clock.